Yes, let's not. *I asked why you tried to mislead people into believing there was no bag at all earlier. *You posted a picture where the bag had been removed and linked to an article claiming there was no bag. *I admitted I was incorrect in saying the WC had not said the bag was made with materials from the TSBD. *I'm not sure how you get goal post shifting out of that.
If by admit you were wrong you mean rapidly backtrack and change the subject then yeah. And it's not that you were wrong that's the problem, everyones wrong on the Internet sometimes, its that in the same breath you accuse me of lying and making stuff up!*
Your posting of that article exposes how CTers can't get their stories straight. *You posted a link to an article whose title is "The Bag That Never Was" and then say that you aren't trying to say there was no bag. *You've got your goalposts on a rocket sled.
This is an unbelievably contrived mangling of what I said. I never for a second said there was no bag at all, my position is that i'm extremely sketpical of the official story on the bag. In my opinion a credible alternative scenario would successfully square off the contrary evidence. Oswald's own story may be correct, and like he did every day he took some lunch to work with him, perhaps in an old shopping bag. Let's consider these points:
1. Of the 4 witnesses we have that day, 2 saw no bag at all and 2 glanced at what they were sure was a much smaller bag than the one alleged by the WC. 1 way to square that is that Oswald was carrying a smaller bag, 1 that could be noticed or not depending on what angle you saw Oswald from.
2. Oswald always brought his lunch in with him prior to the 22nd.
3. Oswald told his interograters he brought his lunch with him that day
4. Some witnesses saw Oswald eating his lunch that day
5. The alleged WC bag appears in none of the crime scene photos and the account of it's finding is unbelievably confused and contradictory.
6. The bag showed no signs of having contained a rifle.
7. The WC said oswald used tape and paper from the TSBD. Yet the man in charge of the paper and tape dispenser, Troy West, told them he never left his station, even for lunch. Yet Oswald never came to him for paper on any occasion. Furthermore, the tape could only be removed from the dispenser when wet, meaning the user would have to use it there in front of West.
8 Nobody ever saw Oswald with the massive piece of paper or the tape the WC said he had, not even Frazier who gave him a lift everyday.
9 Despite the extensive handling needed by Oswald to fashion this massive piece of paper into a bag, and all the handling requited to put a disassembled rifle and carry it to work, and despite at least 3 other men handling the bag after Oswald, only 1 singular identifiable fingerprint was found on it - oswald's.
10 The FBI created a second bag themselves, which the used for identification purposes (!)
11 According to authors John Armstrong, Sylvia Meagher and Anthony Summers, on the 20th of November, somebody tried to mail something addressed to Lee Oswald but at Ruth Paines address in Irving. A postage due note was left at the Paines on the 23rd, with 13 cents to pay. On december the 4th a package addressed to Lee Oswald but with the wrong address was found at the dead letter section of the Dallas post office. It had 13 cents due and contained a brown paper bag similar to the one found in the TSBD. Since the package was tossed into the dead letter pile, it's reasonable to conclude that this was posted before Lee Oswald became the most infamous man in the world. Question is, by who and why?
