JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[Robrob]

In summary, your claim is this:

there were no witnesses to a "large" paper bag.
yes, Wes and his sister
You are getting too cute. The witnesses that saw the bag said the bag was no longer than 27".
Again, you are being glib.
My claim is perfectly clear. Wes and his sister witnessed a bag that was no more than 27" long.

You do realize you are arguing over a difference of 9" - absolutely within the margin of error for a lay person to make well after the fact in an off the cuff observation?

 

[abaddon]

I have and I am using it correctly. Please point out where I am in err.

Sure.

Theory is a proved idea? No, it is not proven. It is a set of ideas but it is not proved/proven. A theorem can be proven.

As for LHO "being the lone gunman has been proved over and over again by the hard evidence." Well, that is your contention yet I have not read your basis for this position.

Which makes it quite clear that you do not understand the concepts.

I never asserted that. I have stated facts and have backed them up, it will not be up to me to provide burden of proof for something I did not say and/or make a claim.

Right back at you. Point out anywhere that you have provided facts.

You are anticipating my answer prior to my answering your question...

Yes. CTs are predictable.

I completely agree with your statement.

No, you don't.

Whatever reputation you may be referring to, it does not alter my comment. Who is hiding behind anonymous posts? You do not make sense...

You are hiding behind anonymity. You are using the internet as a means to make unsupported conspiracy claims in the sure knowledge that you can hide.

I am glad you throw your confidence behind those two as I am certainly not seeking your approval.

Good. You will never get any approval from me.

You may wish to read my post(s) prior to making that last statement.

I have read your posts. My opinion of same would violate the MA, so I shall refrain from further comment.

Hank and BStrong vehemently disagree with me, why would these two, seemingly smart individuals, disagree with me if I do not make a claim?

Please be so good as to identify what claim you are in fact making. Every time any claim is laid at your door, you sprint away from it so fast that it is now indeterminate what it is, or is not, that which you may, or may not be claiming, or not. Or maybe.

 

[ladmo]

You do realize you are arguing over a difference of 9" - absolutely within the margin of error for a lay person to make well after the fact in an off the cuff observation?

And where did you come up with this allowable diviation? Two ways to look at this additional length: either an additional 33% of the length was added or or the 36" is 25% longer than what was testified both are drastically at odds.

 

[ladmo]

Sure.

Until you can comprehend the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis", you are a non-entity. Your attempt at being funny is embarrassing and ill timed; I look forward to anyone who steps up and echos your interpretations of "theory" and "hypothesis". Your assumption that I only use the Internet is again off base as you do not have a clue as to how I obtain anything. Even if the Internet was all that I used, so what, the Internet is only a vehicle to get some place.

 

[ladmo]

So who was seen carrying the large bag into the TSBD?

The Warren Commission substituted the word "large" for 24 to 27". Nobody testified that a "large" bag was carried into the building...

What happened to the smaller bag that Oswald carried in?

I did not process the investigation scene.

What happened to those pesky curtain rods?

one more time... I do not know.

ladmo, stop scurrrying away from answering the questions.

This tactic of saying this is old and it is desparate.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Warren Commission substituted the word "large" for 24 to 27". Nobody testified that a "large" bag was carried into the building...

I did not process the investigation scene.

one more time... I do not know.

This tactic of saying this is old and it is desparate.

Yet you continue to bring up the bag as if it is significant that nobody saw Oswald carry in a "large" bag. If it is significant, then I have questions that you should answer. If it isn't significant, why do you continue to bring it up?

What is your alternative coherent hypothesis for what happened on that day in Dallas? Remember that it must fit all of the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Nope, wasn't me.

Whoops, my mistake. It was Reginad Kcin in this post.

 

[JayUtah]

The Warren Commission substituted the word "large" for 24 to 27". Nobody testified that a "large" bag was carried into the building.

And nobody found a 24-27 inch long bag in the building. The only source of the quantitative length estimate was heavily disclaimed. You're still just trying to make all the rest of the evidence fit your cherry-picked statements from testimony.

I did not process the investigation scene.
...
one more time... I do not know.

Do you realize that this constitutes an inability of your insinuation to account for physical evidence? Do you realize that this makes your insinuation less likely to be true?

This tactic of saying this is old and it is desparate.

No, it's what it takes to get answers from you.

 

[JayUtah]

Until you can comprehend the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis", you are a non-entity.

Translation: I don't have to pay attention to anything you say.

...the Internet is only a vehicle to get some place.

Where are you trying to go? A lot of us have been trying to get you to lay this out for us.

 

[JayUtah]

...both are drastically at odds.

You're allowed to characterize a variance but he is not?

 

[ladmo]

No, the camps are not in any way equivalent in terms of rigor.

this is your interpretation and I have mine.

There is the "Oswald was a lone gunman" camp, and the "Everything else under the sun" camp. The latter can't be considered a true camp since its only unifying concept is "The Warren Commission got it wrong." It's not a useful group when they only thing they can agree on is what they disagree on.

And five decades later, they aren't any more coherent than when they started.

Now, this comment is nothing but hand waving, I expect more out of you. To use the word "they" is way too general as it dismisses all input outside of the "lone gunman" theory.

No need to provide a unifying concept, the people who disagree with the Warren Report do not necessarily agree with each other. Disagreeing with the Warren Report is not the only element within the debate. It is easy to find issues with the Report and I know that you have reservations on certain aspects of it but the report is what it is and it is an easy target. When the Commission changes the location of the bullet wound in JFK's back (Ford admitted to this in his book), when they substitute measurements with ambiguous words, when they fail to call first hand witnesses, when they purposefully ignore testimony and wave it off by saying "they were mistaken"... how can the report be taken seriously? The Commission thought that most of this would never see the light of day and thus... not challenged. Allen Dulles said it perfectly during an the Executive Session held on January 22, 1964 it can be found on the last page...

Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The
Commission supports their conclusions, and WC can go on home and that is the end of it.
Dulles: But that puts the men right on them. If he was not the killer
and they employed him, they are already it, you see. So your argument is
correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it
don't close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this.
Boggs: Yes, I would think so. And of course, we are all even grasping
in the realm of speculation. I don't even like to see this being taken down.
Dulles: Yes. I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think
we need a record of this.
A: I don't, except that we said we would have records of meetings and
so we called the reporter in the formal way. If you think what we have
said here should not be upon the record, we can have it done that way. Of
course it might. . . .
Dulles: I am just thinking of sending around copies and so forth. The only copies of this record should be kept right here.
Boggs: I would hope that none of these records are circulated to anybody.
A: I would hope so too.
Rankin: We also give them to you Commissoners. Now if you don't want
them, those are the only ones who get them besides himself: off the record.
E.O. 11652. See
END

... and this is before the first witness is ever called. The entire Commission's report was contrived to come up with the lone gunman conclusion.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Besides all the corrupt forensic evidence in the JFK case mentioned by ladmo I don't like the way people like Dulles of the CIA and the Nazi politician McCloy were on the Warren Commission. That sort of thing can lead to a corrupt bias. The CIA have nothing to fear if they come clean and just admit they didn't like Kennedy and that they plotted to bump him off with the Mafia using Oswald as a patsy.

The trouble is the CIA seem to control all the documentation. There is supposed to be some documents declassified in 2017 but I have my doubts that will ever happen.
I think it's corrupt government. If the CIA is only interested in drug smuggling and printing money for the rich in terms of gold or commodities, and in the private sector, and cutting government spending and welfare for the disabled and unemployed they could start with some intelligent administration of the CIA budget.

 

[HSienzant]

You are completely wrong. I have challenged comments and they have not been answered. When somebody says and I am paraphrasing but will use the key word... "LHO carried a large bag into the TSBD". I challenge the statement by asking who saw LHO carry the large bag? Actually quite simple. Then the entire element gets dragged across the forum like broom in a barn. I have not read an answer to my question.

Yes, you have. As I pointed out previously, Wes Frazier saw Oswald walk toward the TSBD with the large package taken from the Paine home to Frazier's car, and then toward the TSBD.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.

Now, any evidence Oswald veered off to the left or right and didn't enter the TSBD? None whatsoever.

Any evidence Oswald discarded the package just outside the building? None whatsoever.

Since a large sack bearing Oswald's prints was found on the sixth floor, along with a rifle owned by Oswald, the only reasonable conclusion -- absent any other evidence or other more-reasonable conclusion -- is that Oswald transported the rifle within the sack to the sixth floor. Also, given no 24-27-inch sack was found after the assassination, and no curtain rods as Oswald told Frazier, it's also reasonable to conclude that Oswald simply told that curtain rod story so as to be able to transport the rifle to the TSBD without raising Frazier's suspicions.

Also, given Oswald *denied* in custody ever telling Wes Frazier about a long package containing curtain rods, why do you suppose Oswald denied that claim in custody, since the curtain rods he alleged (to Frazier, but subsequently denied in his interrogations) he transported would prove his innocence?

Also, given Oswald's rifle was missing from its normal hiding place within the blanket within the Paine garage, and no curtain rods were missing from Ruth Paine's home, what do you think was in the large package Oswald transported to the TSBD?

Face it, the weight of the evidence indicates exactly what the Warren Commission concluded...

The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) told the curtain rod story to Frazier to explain both the return to Irving on a Thursday and the obvious bulk of the package which he intended to bring to work the next day; (2) took paper and tape from the wrapping bench of the Depository and fashioned a bag large enough to carry the disassembled rifle; (3) removed the rifle from the blanket in the Paines' garage on Thursday evening; (4) carried the rifle into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag; and, (5) left the bag alongside the window from which the shots were fired.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#long

This is not shifting the burden of proof, it is merely asking someone to have the termerity to stand behind their statement. I will give you the answer: Nobody saw LHO carry a large bag into the TSBD.

Wes Frazier.

Only two individuals in the world ever witnessed LHO carrying a bag that day... Wes Frazier and his sister. Both of them gave a dimension that did not exceed 27". Nobody but the WC provided the word "large" or a word to that effect; I think "bulky" could also have been used.

The Warren report described it as "the long and bulky package". They have a sub-chapter called that. The "bulky" comes from Linnie Mae Randle's testimony. She said "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was ... more bulky toward the bottom." She also described the package as heavy, heavier and more bulky toward the bottom - a description that fits a rifle stock, but not curtain rods.

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#long

This is why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim

You are claiming apparently that a 24- to 27-inch package doesn't qualify as large, while a 36-inch package does so qualify. Can you tell us where, between 27-inches and 36-inches, the cutoff for 'large' lies?

Since it is your apparent claim that "large" is the wrong adjective to use, and "the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim", can you provide that cutoff number?

As for the "rifle bag" (a bag that was 36" long) the chain of possession was totally compromised no matter how many people saw it laying on the floor.

No, it's not. J.C.Day affirmed the package was the one found:

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.

First, there was no photo taken at the crime scene and as you could read through the testimony... there are as many versions of the bag as there are Detectives who were at the scene.

Both have been asked and answered. Bring up bogus, discarded points some more. I understand you have nothing else, so you must do this.

Second, when the bag was returned with a palm print that was not initially "discovered" by the Dallas Police, the bag was permanently altered due to the silver nitrate process. This, by definition, was a destructive test and completely altered the bag.

Aha. You are changing the claim now that I've pointed out the testimony of Latona concerning the bag. Previously, you claimed the bag was destroyed, and no one saw the fingerprints. Now, you're claiming that the bag color was altered because of the testing done to bring out the fingerprints. Yes, we've known that all along. It was pointed out to you from Latona's testimony. Is it your argument that the test should NOT have been performed so as to retain the original color of the bag? If so, why? (except you don't like the results).
What exactly is your argument here?

Yes, the testing for the prints is destructive of the color. But if the test had not been performed so as to retain the original color, would it not be your argument that a test that might have proven exculpatory towards Oswald was not performed, as it was when you (or perhaps Henri - but it's a standard conspiracy argument that could have been gleaned from any number of web sites) advanced the argument that a test that could determine if a rifle had been fired recently was not performed?

Since nobody could identify the bag as being the original bag,

FALSE. See J.C.Day's affirmation above.

...another bag was made up and shown to Wes and his sister.

FALSE. Both witnesses were shown both the original and a reconstructed bag also made with paper from the TSBD's shipping department. The original bag is CE142, the recreation is CE364.

Mr. BALL - This is another bag here which has been marked Commission's Exhibit 142. But I don't see the stamp on it. This is FBI No. 10. This was shown to you before, wasn't it, in Dallas?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. BALL - You were asked if you had seen this before, weren't you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Mr. BALL. ...There is another package here. You remember this was shown you. It is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and remember you were asked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents if this looked like the package; do you remember?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm

In short, Wes Frazier stood by his original testimony and said the bag that LHO carried was no greater than 27". So there was never a linkage between this bag and the rifle. Yet, others wanted me to comment on how the bag got there... and that is not for me to say as I do not claim anything in regards to that bag.

Your bolded claim was dispatched here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9674687&postcount=4824
Remember?

You don't claim anything in regards to the bag?

You claim 'large' is the wrong adjective to use. You claim no one saw Oswald carry the package into the TSBD, but Frazier affirmed both here:

Mr. LIEBELER. You testified in Washington that on that particular morning you saw Oswald carrying a large brown package from the car into the Texas School Book Depository Building and that also you saw that package in the car; isn't that right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you described that package and you told us about what you saw in detail at that time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald with the package similar to the one you saw on November 22, 1963?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald carry a package from Irving into the Texas School Book Depository Building that looked anything like the package he had on November 22, 1963?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see him with a package that looked like that package any other time or at any other place?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb2.htm


Your witness.

Hank

PS: Are you SURE you're familiar with the witnesses testimony you admonished us to read?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Besides all the corrupt forensic evidence in the JFK case mentioned by ladmo I don't like the way people like Dulles of the CIA and the Nazi politician McCloy were on the Warren Commission. That sort of thing can lead to a corrupt bias. The CIA have nothing to fear if they come clean and just admit they didn't like Kennedy and that they plotted to bump him off with the Mafia using Oswald as a patsy.

The trouble is the CIA seem to control all the documentation. There is supposed to be some documents declassified in 2017 but I have my doubts that will ever happen.
I think it's corrupt government. If the CIA is only interested in drug smuggling and printing money for the rich in terms of gold or commodities, and in the private sector, and cutting government spending and welfare for the disabled and unemployed they could start with some intelligent administration of the CIA budget.

0/10

 

[ladmo]

And nobody found a 24-27 inch long bag in the building. The only source of the quantitative length estimate was heavily disclaimed.

Disclaimed by the Commission only, Wes stated in front of the ARRB that he was firm on his initial measurement.

You're still just trying to make all the rest of the evidence fit your cherry-picked statements from testimony.

In no way have I attempted to make "all the rest of the evidence fit your cherry-picked statements". My claims are targeted and absolute. The term "cherry-picked" is poisoning the well; of course they are selected statements, they are statements that deal with my claim. I do not pull them out of context (as cherry-picking infers) as I do not include comments that do not deal with the subject at hand.

Do you realize that this constitutes an inability of your insinuation to account for physical evidence? Do you realize that this makes your insinuation less likely to be true?

No it does not. This is rhetoric. If this is your true belief then you have a difficult time reconciling the entire assassination of JFK. There is very little physical evidence and there is even less physical evidence directly linked to LHO. Be sure to read Fritz's notes that he took when he interrogated LHO, they are revealing and they are consistent with what has been found and what has not been found to be directly traced to LHO as physical evidence.

No, it's what it takes to get answers from you.

When I present a question or provide testimony, it is unanswered or there is no response. Instead a new question is given to me. Here is an example... Quote:There is no testimony at any level that has witnessed LHO or anyone else bring a M/C into the TSBD.
Response: Ah, you're backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD the day of the assassination then... end

That was from post #4699 and Robo distorted my claim. "Ah, you're backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD the day of the assassination then." My claim was that nobody saw LHO bring a "large" package into the TSBD... but he opportunistically left the "large" off which purposefully re-characterized my position. There is no way I can take him seriously, he lies.

I really thought there would be discussions but instead there is a steady barrage of attacks and some of them are just downright stupid ie: abbadabbas lack of comprehension... "theory" and "hypothesis" are proven facts. Really? Train your arrows on that type of garbage.

 

[JayUtah]

this is your interpretation and I have mine.

I gave the rationale behind my interpretation. Where's yours?

Now, this comment is nothing but hand waving, I expect more out of you.

Your approval is not something I require.

The comment is salient because, as I said, the only premise shared by all the conspiracy theories is that the Warren Commission got it wrong. Exactly how they got it wrong and what they should have concluded instead is a matter of widespread disagreement among its detractors, many of whom don't seem to know much about the investigation they're critiquing.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Proof that one really knows how someone else erred is found in that person's exceptional demonstration of the better way. After five decades, the combined forces of all these people who think they know so much better how the case should have been investigated have failed to identify the real perpetrator. And it has gotten to the point where they say they aren't even trying. To me that disqualifies it as a serious pursuit of truth.

... and this is before the first witness is ever called. The entire Commission's report was contrived to come up with the lone gunman conclusion.

Have you actually read what the Warren Commission was charged to do? As I've said repeatedly, you keep trying to shoehorn the existing investigation into a hypothetical court case, apply those rules to it, and declare yourself the victorious attorney who has vindicated Oswald.

On a related note, how does one go about determining that a body has been "contrived" to produce a certain thing, when they produce that thing, without it simply being a second-guess argument? All your attempts to undermine the Warren Commission, toward whatever purprose, amount to, "I would have done it differently." And we know you're not qualified to do it, so I wonder how you think your approach is even remotely persuasive.

 

[HSienzant]

Besides all the corrupt forensic evidence in the JFK case mentioned by ladmo ....

What "corrupt forensic evidence" are you claiming exists and are willing to debate?

I'm pretty certain all of ladmo's claims have been shown to be nonsense regarding any corruption of the evidence concerning the bag. If I've missed any, or if you have new points of evidence to discuss (and attempt to dismiss), feel free to bring them up.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

When I present a question or provide testimony, it is unanswered or there is no response. Instead a new question is given to me. Here is an example... Quote:There is no testimony at any level that has witnessed LHO or anyone else bring a M/C into the TSBD.
Response: Ah, you're backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD the day of the assassination then... end

That was from post #4699 and Robo distorted my claim. "Ah, you're backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD the day of the assassination then." My claim was that nobody saw LHO bring a "large" package into the TSBD... but he opportunistically left the "large" off which purposefully re-characterized my position. There is no way I can take him seriously, he lies.

Let's look at the whole quote in context:

There is no testimony at any level that has witnessed LHO or anyone else bring a M/C into the TSBD.

Ah, you're backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD the day of the assassination then.

You changed your claim from "package" to "M/C [rifle]". That's why I said you were backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD. You changed it to the rifle. In other words, you are lying and you compound it by lying about me.

 

[ladmo]

Yes, you have. As I pointed out previously, Wes Frazier saw Oswald walk toward the TSBD with the large package taken from the Paine home to Frazier's car, and then toward the TSBD.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Before we get too far into this, point out exactly where Wes said he saw a large package? Frazier has testified to seeing a package no greater than 27", this is a fact, it is under sworn testimony and if you can provide me with testimony that says otherwise, I will apologize for my actions.

Hank, if you can complete this, I will then follow with the apology.

thanks

 

[ladmo]

You changed your claim from "package" to "M/C [rifle]". That's why I said you were backing off of your claim that nobody saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD. You changed it to the rifle. In other words, you are lying and you compound it by lying about me.

You failed to put in "large"; do you agree? You presented a false conclusion. You just attacked and made a false statement, there is no getting around this. Still on this post you don't even acknowledge that you failed to put "large" in front of package and until you do, you will be a liar. If it is an honest mistake, you would say so... but you haven't and you have had plenty of opportunity.