I put both my questions and your responses (it wouldn't be accurate to call them 'answers') in the below, as the questions are pertinent.
No Other: Still looking for some answers to these softball questions:
Again, I am not taking a stance on who shot who. It is more fun to point out your lack of knowledge.
I think a reasonable assessment of the evidence leads one inexorably to the conclusion that Oswald brought the rifle into the Depository in the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. I think it's unreasonable to conclude anything else, and I'll point out why below. Good luck on your pointing out my 'lack of knowledge'.
And if you're going to persist in arguing it wasn't a rifle that Oswald brought into the Depository, please tell us:
I am not advocating that LHO brought anything into the building. My comments have been on the WC ignoring portions of one witness and then heavily relying on that same witness for the cornerstone of LHO bringing the rifle into the building.
But later on in this very post, you do the exact same thing you criticize the Warren Commission for, with the exact same witness. I'll point it out at the appropriate time, and detail why your treatment is unreasonable, while the Warren Commission's conclusion was entirely reasonable.
(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
How would I know what was in a package and what does that have to do with anything? My lack of knowing what was in any package has nothing to do with the comments I made.
No, it has a lot to do with it. The Warren Commission advanced a scenario complete with hard evidence, scientific evidence, and eyewitness testimony that fits together in a coherent manner and makes sense. You quibble over one piece of that consiliance of evidence and think that calls into question the conclusions of the Warren Commission that was based on far more evidence than the one piece you quibble over. It doesn't.
Nor can you advance a competing scenario that makes any sense. You can't explain how Oswald's rifle got into the depository, you can't explain what Oswald had in the package he took to the depository (although it's not the rifle, that much is apparently certain to you), you can't explain why a long paper sack was found in the corner of the sniper's nest, you can't explain why Oswald's rifle just happened to be missing from the blanket it was normally stored in... you cannot explain anything. You just want to quibble over how much weight to put on an estimate of length, apparently.
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
who said anything was in the blanket? I don't recall LHO making such a claim.
Marina made the claim that she saw the rifle in the blanket. I quoted this to you in the past.
Michael Paine made the claim that when he moved the blanket, the blanket contained something heavy, which he guessed was made of iron from the weight. He thought it was camping equipment. I quoted this to you in the past.
Reliance on the accused for the true story might be asking a bit much. Of course the accused is going to say he's innocent - and that's true whether he's innocent or guilty. So you can't just cite the accused's denials as evidence, but that's what you're doing. That's unreasonable.
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
if it was his lunch, I will take a guess that he ate it but I have no idea what if anything was brought into the building.
Did Oswald have a 27" hoagie in that long paper sack Frazier described? Or are you suggesting Frazier estimated the length of the sack incorrectly and it was actually much smaller than 27"?
Moreover, Frazier explained that Oswald told him the day before, when he asked for a ride, that he was going back specifically for curtain rods, and the special trip was for that reason.
Was Frazier wrong about that? Making it all up? Thinking of another Thursday he took Oswald back to Mrs.Paine's? Did the long sack contain Oswald's lunch or curtain rods, or a rifle? The evidence indicates the special trip wasn't for curtain rods or lunch. So what was the special trip on a Thursday for, exactly? Any ideas?
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
I am sure the bag could also be long enough to contain a flag pole but I do not recall any picture of any bag being taken outside of the bag that had chicken bones in it.
There is no photo of the bag in situ. Trainee Studebaker admitted to picking the bag up inadvertently before it could be photographed in place.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/studebak.htm
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studef.jpg
Mr. BALL. Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water pipes in the corner there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes - the paper wrapping?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it - right here.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
There are also plenty of photos of the bag elsewhere in the record. For example, here's the bag as it's taken from the Depository.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpev...s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
a bag made from Depository paper was found in the Depository... woo, call the FBI that should never happen, the Depository should be using paper from the building next to it. Wow, you really asked this question...
I remind it wasn't just found "in the Depository". It was found on the sixth floor, the same floor as the rifle. The same floor as the assassin was seen from outside the building. And right next to the window the assassin was seen with a weapon. Right in the sniper's nest.
Is it of probative value? I would say yes. But you think the home-made sack, long enough to contain the rifle found on the sixth floor, is apparently not of any value and could safely be ignored.
What would the police think to do in that case? We can say what they did -- they took the bag into evidence and investigated it further. And so did the FBI, going to the trouble of using iodide fumes to enhance the fingerprint on it, and determine it was Oswald's print. Your argument is unreasonable and shows you are bent on absolving Oswald of guilt rather than investigating the crime. The bag is evidence. Important evidence. Your attempt to denigrate it notwithstanding.
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
LHO worked in the building, his prints along with many others will be found all over the place... nothing earth shattering in that revelation.
Again, this bag wasn't found "all over the place". It was found in the corner of the sniper's nest. And it was long enough to contain the rifle found on the same floor. And it contained Oswald's print. And it matched in most respects (except for the *estimate* of the length) the bag described by Wes Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle. The location, size, and description of the bag offer forensic evidence that this bag was used to transport the rifle to the Depository.
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and
I believe the rifle was ordered by a A. Hidell and the real question is "how did A. Hidell pick up the weapon at a Post Office Box that was not in his name? Riddle me that one...
Hilarious! Are we supposed to not notice you didn't even try to answer that question, and instead asked another one, in a rather obvious attempt at changing the subject? Try answering the question I asked:
How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository?
I won't ignore your question or try to change the subject. I'll answer it:
Your question was answered previously by another poster (more than likely, the PO employee would give the package shipped to the PO Box to the person with the PO Box key). Or it would be given to the person who owns the PO Box. Or to the person presenting Hidell ID. Of course, Oswald had the PO Box key. He also was the one who purchased the PO Box. And of course, he had Hidell ID in his wallet when he was arrested.
So there is no great mystery how Oswald came to possess the weapon shipped to his PO box. Except of course to conspiracy theorists who don't understand a reasonable conclusion if they would trip over it. And you, because as you insist, you're not a conspiracy theorist. Right?
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?
Sounds like LHO used the WC approach on mistaken and faulty memory. Frazier is the only employee that said LHO brought a package into the building, if you can find another witness who saw LHO bring in a package, that would be the person to ask otherwise anybody can say anything and until it is corroborated it is just one person's claim.
You took issue with the Warren Commission's approach when you felt they were wrong to call Frazier mistaken. But you offer up Oswald's calling Frazier mistaken as apparent evidence of Oswald's innocence.
Moreover, your argument that eyewitnesses need corroboration is a new one. Can you site one case where a witness's testimony was disallowed by the court because it wasn't corroborated? The testimony of Frazier would be allowed. As would that of his sister, which offers corroboration for the long package.
While the more people saying the same thing happened makes it more likely to be true, it is curious you don't apply that approach for corroboration when bringing up what Carolyn Walther said she saw. No one else said they saw a man in a brown jacket behind the shooter, did they? Where's the corroboration for that?
But two people saw Oswald with the package that morning. Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald walk to Frazier's car and put a long package in the back seat of the car. Frazier saw the long package in the back seat when he went to the car to drive himself and Oswald to work. Did that package shrink between Wes Frazier's driveway and the Depository, and turn into a lunch sack that Oswald claimed he had in the front seat?
Moreover, this is where you trip yourself up big time. Previously you were arguing that Frazier's estimate was apparently sacrosanct, and the Warren Commission erred in dismissing his estimate of 27" as the length of the bag, while keeping his observation of the bag itself. You remember advancing that argument?
First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required. Buell Wesley Frazier witnessed LHO bringing a sack approximately 27" long with him that morning but not a 38" sack. Buell's sister also witnessed seeing a sack the size that her brother saw... outside of that Nobody saw LHO carry a 38" sack into the building that day or any other day. The WC said Frazier was mistaken on the length and then they said his sister was also mistaken yet the cornerstone of the WC saying LHO brought the rifle to work is based on Buell's and his sister's testimony (except for their description of what they say). So the only 2 people who can put LHO with a package were told they were wrong (the size of the package) by a Committee that never saw the package.
And just above you advanced the same argument this way:
I am challenging what the WC reported; it is highly inconsistent and in fact, it is an abuse of power to say about someone like Frazier that his observation of a package being brought to work by LHO is the backbone against LHO and then dismiss Frazier's observation of how big the package was... only because it did not fit their narrative. The WC never provided an observational rebuttal to what Frazier saw but instead elected to make an unfounded, unsupported conclusion because it folds neatly into the WC claim.
I would say the Warren Commission keeping Frazier's recollection of a bag but dismissing his estimate of the bag's length is a far more reasonable conclusion than what you're doing, which is
keeping Frazier's estimate of 27" inches for the bag while also arguing Oswald had nothing in his hands whatsoever.
Wouldn't you say that "it is an abuse of power to say about someone like Frazier that his estimate of the length of a package being brought to work by LHO is the backbone in favor of LHO and then dismiss Frazier's observation that Oswald was carrying a package whatsoever"?
How does Frazier estimate 27" for a bag Oswald never had? Your attempt to absolve Oswald of bringing the rifle to the Depository is floundering, big time.
You jump from one extreme (the estimate is sacrosanct and eliminates the rifle) to the other (Frazier had no bag and eliminates the rifle) in your arguments, but never settle on the one that's the most reasonable -- Oswald had a bag, but it was slightly longer than 27" - by about an additional third -- matching the hard evidence of the long paper bag found in the sniper's nest that coincidentally bore Oswald's print.
The fact that you only advance arguments that eliminate the rifle also establishes you're not a disinterested party "not taking a stance on who shot who". It shows you're a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist arguing that Oswald didn't bring his rifle into the Depository and therefore Oswald "didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
Hank
