JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[caz]

Why do you persist in this subterfuge. The witnesses weren't lying, but they didn't say what you are claiming that they said. I have already posted the transcript of the questioning by Ball of the witnesses which you seem to have refused to read. In summary, Frazier and Randle, each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. They determined this by how the package was being held, an experiment that can be performed by anyone, and an estimate of size. There is a lot of space between bigger than a lunch bag and a large bulky package. The paper supermarket bag I used to carry home our groceries would fit right in that range, and could be recycled to carry my lunch, but not my rifle.

The rest of your questions require speculation, and such speculation can be seen here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-har...d-curtain-rods

Why did Oswald bother to tell Frazier in the first place that his bag contained curtain rods, if it looked like it could reasonably have been his packed lunch instead? What was the lie designed to convey, if there was nothing suspicious or embarrassing about what was in the bag, and if the bag itself didn't even look suspicious or embarrassing?

Did he have an unfeasibly long banana in there, which nobody would have swallowed as an innocent piece of fruit?

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Its possible that he didn’t expect the police in the TSBD so soon after the shots?

Monty Python Spanish Inquisition Part 1 - YouTube

[Herlock Sholmes]

[caz]

I am not accusing anyone of lying. You are misrepresenting the testimony of the witnesses. I have posted a transcription of the cross examination by Day, and the witnesses described the manner in which the package was held, the approximate length, and each stated, on two occasions, that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. Size is of the utmost relevance. It is irrelevant whether the package was too big for sandwiches or whether it could have contained curtain rods. The relevant point is that the witnesses stated that it was too small to contain a rifle. These witnesses were Texans and would have experience and knowledge in handling guns beyond just watching Elmer Fudd cartoons. They would be well aware of the size of a rifle and whether a bag was too small to contain it.

Are you saying that their testimony is falsified. Can you post an official cross examination where the witnesses use the words "large bulky package"? Only someone with zero knowledge of firearms would suggest that a rifle could fit in a bag the size of a brief case, and that's the size they were talking about.

What would have happened to the plan, I wonder, if their 'patsy' had not taken a packed lunch with him that day, or curtain rods, or anything else? How about a flask of tomato soup? Women invariably carried a handbag of some sort wherever they went back then, but many men in my experience carried nothing with them at all, or at most a newspaper or an umbrella. It's obvious to me why Oswald later denied the curtain rod story, because it was so incriminating. He could not have explained why he had them with him or what he did with them, while a packed lunch could be eaten. If the package was larger than usual that day, and more rifle shaped than lunch shaped, it becomes all too evident why he spoke to Frazier about curtain rods. If he really had been carrying a bag of curtain rods on a very recent occasion, and this is what Frazier was thinking of, then his middle name should have been Unlucky.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Humes is correct and Audrey Bell is correct we have a problem then dont we , as far i know Humes or anybody else claimed that Audrey Bell was in incorrect with her statement about the bullet . Show me Warren Commission evidence that contradicts what Bell said ?, show me on what page of the warren commission report the evidence thats ties paper bag to the rifle .

FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said ''explicitly'' that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was in a well-oiled condition. It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions.

Was the paper bag not tested for Lyons Individual Fruit Pie crumbs - if not curtain rod residue?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You keep obfuscating George.

From the WC.

Frazier: When he rode with me, I say he always bought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn’t bring his lunch that day.

So for the first time Oswald altered his routing to get to the Paine’s on the evening before the assassination.


then:


Ball: Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of container?

Frazier: Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of the grocery store.


So Oswald always brought his lunch in a little sack.


Later:

Frazier: I told her (his sister) that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something.

So, unless you accuse Frazier of lying, Oswald lied.


Later:

Bell: This night, this evening, do you remember did you talk to her (his sister) about the fact that he had come home with you?

Frazier: Yes, sir. I believe she said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he’s going to get one curtain rods.


He mentions the curtain rods to Linnie Mae Randle.


Then when asked about the package on the back seat:

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 just roughly estimate and that would be around 2 feet, give and take a few inches.


The package was on the back seat when he saw it. Frazier was clearly estimating. Are we back to saying that estimations can’t be wrong (as some do on the JTR threads)


Ball: How wide was the package?

Frazier: Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there.


And did his sister remember the curtain rods story?


Randle: What Wesley told me. That Lee had road home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs Paine to fix up his apartment.

So yes, 2 people confirm the curtain rods story. Did these 2 perfectly ordinary people come up with this random lie? Or did Oswald lie? Reason gives us only one answer to that one.


Describing the package she said:

Randle: He was carrying a package in a sort of heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me.


A package that clearly stood out as bulkier that a pack of sandwiches.


She estimated its length at a little bit more than 2 feet.

Another estimation.


……..


So the questions are obvious, and easy to answer. Which is the likelier?

a) Frazier and Randle completely invented the story about the curtain rods and they concocted the suggestion that the package was bulkier than Oswald’s lunchbox.

or,

b) These two perfectly ordinary people with no axe to grind told the truth about Oswald’s ludicrous curtain rods story but their estimation of the length of the package was a few inches short due to the fact that they didn’t pay any great attention to it. Frazier having only glanced at it when it was on the seat behind him.

I know which one I go for.

And if you are told "curtain rods", you yawn and carry on. You don't automatically suspect "rifle" and then carefully scrutinise the package for clues, reassessing the length of it to see which is the more likely.

Well I never have, personally. But each to their own conspiracy theory.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ahh, humour. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Why are sandwiches and curtain rods of any relevance? The point is that it doesn't matter whether the package was the right or wrong size for either. The point is that both witnesses stated that the package was no where near long enough to contain a rifle.

Ruth Paine’s garage, from which he is supposed to have retrieved the rifle, did contain curtain rods that were about the right size to fit in the bag described by Frazier and Randle. Against this, there is no record of any curtain rods having been discovered in the TSBD, and Ruth Paine claimed that no curtain rods were missing (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.9, pp.424f), although her husband Michael was less sure (ibid., p.461).

Nobody likes to admit being duped by someone they assumed was telling them the simple truth, especially if he was heading off to kill the President no less, with what they had been led to believe were curtain rods. It would have been rather embarrassing to say, come to think of it, as curtain rods go, they were shaped almost exactly like a r.... oh bugger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me the whole thing can be pretty much solved on this one small point.

Q - Did Lee Harvey Oswald tell a lie about curtain rods?

A - Yes.

Q - Could there be a non-sinister reason for the lie.

A - No.

Therefore he is guilty of, at the very least, taking a rifle to work on the very day that the President was assassinated.

This isn’t difficult stuff, we don’t need to quibble over the estimates of the package’s size or anything else. Lie equals guilt.

[GBinOz]

What would have happened to the plan, I wonder, if their 'patsy' had not taken a packed lunch with him that day, or curtain rods, or anything else? How about a flask of tomato soup? Women invariably carried a handbag of some sort wherever they went back then, but many men in my experience carried nothing with them at all, or at most a newspaper or an umbrella. It's obvious to me why Oswald later denied the curtain rod story, because it was so incriminating. He could not have explained why he had them with him or what he did with them, while a packed lunch could be eaten. If the package was larger than usual that day, and more rifle shaped than lunch shaped, it becomes all too evident why he spoke to Frazier about curtain rods. If he really had been carrying a bag of curtain rods on a very recent occasion, and this is what Frazier was thinking of, then his middle name should have been Unlucky.

Love,

Caz
X

One witness did actually say he carried nothing in his hand that morning. HS and yourself want the witnesses to be accurate on curtain rods but mistaken on package length. Can you fit a rifle in your handbag?

[GBinOz]

This drivel is not worth responding too.

In what way was Nurse Bell an expert in bullet fragments? Did she weigh them? No she didn’t. These were minute quantities. How could she have possibly made her ill informed guesswork?

Its pathetic. You latch onto this complete and utter nonentity in terms of this investigation and ignore the genuine, authentic experts who tell us the truth about the actual bullet.

God, your posts are just getting poorer and poorer if that’s humanly possible.

I give detailed, in-depth responses using proper experts on the topic at hand and all that you can do is jump up and down squealing “what about Nurse Bell, what about Nurse Bell!”

And again…do you accuse Frazier and Randle of lying about Oswald’s curtain rods story? A simple yes or no shouldn’t be too difficult. You can even PM George to consult. Maybe between the two of you you can pluck up the coursge for a straight answer. Though I doubt it.

In what way are you an expert on bullet fragments? You have no idea how small an amount is a grain (1/7000 of a Lb or 0.065gms). It is a minute amount that could not be weighed on anything but a high end powder scale, which of course everyone carries around with them.

So you want Frazier and Randle correct on curtain rods but mistaken on rifle size?

[GBinOz]

A pathetic, lame and biased non-response. I’ve quoted experts that kick, your conspiracist silliness into the long grass. The ‘pristine’ bullet is nothing more than a 100% proven lie. Repeated so often by Conspiracy Theorists that those who don’t examine the actual facts assume that the idea is a fact. Nothing but a proven lie.

No need for further comment on this. The experts testimony is all that we need.

Doctors are experts on ballistics? I'm still waiting on your photo of the magic bullet from an angle showing a crushing at the front.

[FISHY1118]

Was the paper bag not tested for Lyons Individual Fruit Pie crumbs - if not curtain rod residue?

Love,

Caz
X

I don't recall the president being killed by lyons individual fruit pie crumbs .

[FISHY1118]

Doctors are experts on ballistics? I'm still waiting on your photo of the magic bullet from an angle showing a crushing at the front.

Wait your turn please George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wait your turn please George

When you respond to one single question of mine Fishy with a non-childish bit of cheerleading of someone else’s comments then I’ll consider responding. I’ve answered every one of your questions but you’ve answered none. Either make a meaningful contribution or stop wasting both of our times by repeatedly asking me silly questions.

[FISHY1118]

When you respond to one single question of mine Fishy with a non-childish bit of cheerleading of someone else’s comments then I’ll consider responding. I’ve answered every one of your questions but you’ve answered none. Either make a meaningful contribution or stop wasting both of our times by repeatedly asking me silly questions.

Like I said wait your turn George.

I try not to listen your winging anymore Herlock. . Wheres the photo and the 3 finger print experts from the warren commission..

I see you've added a new tag when describing Audrey bell, .

George was spot on about you when it comes to witnesses . Oops sorry apparently its a now a crime to mention a fellow poster who's opinion i happen to agree with .