Discussion:
HIGHLY INCRIMINATING: The long brown paper bag
(too old to reply)
Ed Cage
2003-11-10 21:20:53 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
out who cooked up that misleading moniker when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
almost impossible to talk your way out of and it's backed with:
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him the bag contained
"curtain rods" in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! WHY?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?

No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America Vincent
Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a central piece
of his case.. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
Long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
astonishing and comical is the best way I can address that
particular line of sophomoric "reasoning"... I'm not sure who
decided that it was a good idea to drop the terms "long brown
paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but they certainly had a
sense of humor. I was trying to figure out who cooked up that
misleading moniker when I stumbled across an excellent rebuttal
by Dot John.. It is attached below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
almost impossible to talk your way out of and it's backed with:
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal*
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him there were "curtain rods"
in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! Why?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?

No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America,
Vincent Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a
CENTRAL piece of his presentation! .. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
"astonishing" and "comical" is the best way I can address that
particular line of "reasoning"...

Constantly amazed, mR ;~D
* The only "rebuttal" appears to be that the 2 witnesses got
the length 100% correct thereby proving the rifle "couldn't"
have been in the pesky bag!! (Let's go w "comical"..)
I'm afraid you've let conspiracists lead you down a rabbit hole on
this issue. If you try *real* hard you can concoct some scenario that
doesn't have Oswald bringing the rifle into the Depository in that
bag, but you have to make all kinds of barely possible but highly
unlikely assumptions.
To even *begin* to take seriously the notion that Oswald didn't bring
the rifle into the Depository in the bag, one has to satisfactorily
Frazier and Randle testified that Oswald had a long package with him
that morning. If they were lying about the package to frame Oswald,
wouldn't they have stated the package was 38 inches long, the length
of the package found at the depository? If you are going to lie, why
not tell a lie that does the job properly?
If the police officers forged a paper bag to explain how Oswald
brought the rifle into the building unseen, wouldn't they have taken
the time to photograph it where they were going to claim it was
discovered on the sixth floor?
How could they have known so early in the investigation that no one
had seen Oswald with a rifle so that they would need something to
cover the rifle and properly frame Oswald?
How did they know to add fibers from a blanket?
How did they know in which blanket Oswald had kept the rifle or even
that he had kept the rifle in a blanket?
If they did plant the fibers, why not plant enough to make the
evidence conclusive?
More importantly, how would they have known that Randle and Frazier
were going to say they saw Oswald with a bag? They had not talked to
either one yet. They were both friends with Oswald, so what motivation
would they have to lie and frame him?
If Oswald did want curtain rods for his room, why did he have to go
home on a Thursday to get them when he could have easily have gotten
them over the weekend?
Where did he get the curtain rods?
Where did the curtain rods go?
Why did Oswald need curtain rods if there were curtain rods already
up?
How did Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint end up on the bag with an
impression of a rifle?
Where did the rifle in the Paine garage go, if it was not the
Mannlicher-Carcano found on the sixth floor of the Depository?
How did a rifle matching Oswald's appear in the Depository if it was
not brought there by him?
If he didn't take the rifle, why did Oswald, for the first time during
his entire marriage, leave his wedding ring at home (1H73)?
Then, probably the biggest one: why did Oswald lie to the cops about
even *having* a long bag?
.John
S.O
2003-11-11 22:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
out who cooked up that misleading moniker when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
almost impossible to talk your way out of
Ed--

Maybe Oswald was bringing one of those long sandwiches to share at work (you
know, the kind you can get at Subway..) and it was a surprise (hence the
"lie" about curtain rods)?

Shoot, ....it makes as much sense as most of the other CT stuff you hear
here....

Scott O.
Ecagetx
2003-11-12 02:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Yes Scott!

The CT faction assumes the 27" est MUST be exactly correct.. Thereby
disproving Oswald ever brought his missing rifle to TSBD 11-22-63.. Works
for me..

What could possibly be more convincing?

Mr Ed
S.O
2003-11-12 02:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
out who cooked up that misleading moniker when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
almost impossible to talk your way out of
Ed--

Maybe Oswald was bringing one of those long sandwiches to share at work
(you know, the kind you can get at Subway..) and it was a surprise (hence
the "lie" about curtain rods)?

Shoot, ....it makes as much sense as most of the other CT stuff you hear
here....

Scott O.
Ecagetx
2003-11-13 04:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Scott,

Ya know, it might be worth it to see if they had 27-30" sub sandwiches in
Dallas in 1963.. If we find evidence of that, we may just clear up this
booger once and fer all!

Can you even B=E=L=I=E=V=E someone would even dream that the evidence of
Oswald (TWO EYE WITNESSES) bringing a LONG bwn paper bag to him on
11-22-63 morning might be "helpful" in clearing (Har-har) him??!!??

Never mind those pesky blanket fibers, and pesky prints on the bag and
that pesky EMPTY blanket Marina said contained Oswald's rifle
(missing..but found at 6th Floor!) Whoever thought this long bwn bag
thing was a "good" point to bring up to clear Oswald needs to go soak
their head..

Tague asked me about the high volume of unsubstantiated unknowledgeable
posters in here,.. I had no defense Scott.

Mr Ed
S.O
2003-11-14 03:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ecagetx
Scott,
Ya know, it might be worth it to see if they had 27-30" sub sandwiches in
Dallas in 1963.. If we find evidence of that, we may just clear up this
booger once and fer all! Can you even B=E=L=I=E=V=E someone would even
dream that the evidence of
Post by Ecagetx
Oswald (TWO EYE WITNESSES) bringing a LONG bwn paper bag to him on
11-22-63 morning might be "helpful" in clearing (Har-har) him??!!??
Ed--

I've come to the conclusion that Oswald was going the share the sandwich
with Greer.

Scott
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ecagetx
Scott,
Ya know, it might be worth it to see if they had 27-30" sub sandwiches in
Dallas in 1963.. If we find evidence of that, we may just clear up this
booger once and fer all!
Can you even B=E=L=I=E=V=E someone would even dream that the evidence of
Oswald (TWO EYE WITNESSES) bringing a LONG bwn paper bag to him on
11-22-63 morning might be "helpful" in clearing (Har-har) him??!!??
This is where you constantly fail at this argument, eD. The two witnesses
did NOT define "long" as 34.8", eD. They defined it, through FBI
recreations, as 27". That length IS helpful in clearing Oswald as it's TOO
DAMN SHORT for the M-C to fit into.
Post by Ecagetx
Never mind those pesky blanket fibers, and pesky prints on the bag
His blanket, his ENVELOPE. Nothing earthshattering at all for the ENVELOPE
to have a few fibers on it that MAY have come from his blanket.
Post by Ecagetx
and
that pesky EMPTY blanket Marina said contained Oswald's rifle
Citation please.
Post by Ecagetx
(missing..but found at 6th Floor!) Whoever thought this long bwn bag
thing was a "good" point to bring up to clear Oswald needs to go soak
their head.
I can say the same for you. Soak away. I doubt it'll do any good.
Post by Ecagetx
Tague asked me about the high volume of unsubstantiated unknowledgeable
posters in here,.. I had no defense Scott.
My heart goes out to you, eD.
--
John Hill (joisa)
clark wilkins
2003-11-13 03:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Ed is rehashing an already failed argument. You can read how it fails on
every single point by reading my earlier response to it under the thread:

"Any EVIDENCE Oswald did NOT bring rifle into TSBD - by Ed Cage"
Post by Ed Cage
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
out who cooked up that misleading moniker when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him the bag contained
"curtain rods" in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! WHY?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America Vincent
Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a central piece
of his case.. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
Long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
astonishing and comical is the best way I can address that
particular line of sophomoric "reasoning"... I'm not sure who
decided that it was a good idea to drop the terms "long brown
paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but they certainly had a
sense of humor. I was trying to figure out who cooked up that
misleading moniker when I stumbled across an excellent rebuttal
by Dot John.. It is attached below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal*
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him there were "curtain rods"
in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! Why?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America,
Vincent Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a
CENTRAL piece of his presentation! .. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
"astonishing" and "comical" is the best way I can address that
particular line of "reasoning"...
Constantly amazed, mR ;~D
* The only "rebuttal" appears to be that the 2 witnesses got
the length 100% correct thereby proving the rifle "couldn't"
have been in the pesky bag!! (Let's go w "comical"..)
I'm afraid you've let conspiracists lead you down a rabbit hole on
this issue. If you try *real* hard you can concoct some scenario that
doesn't have Oswald bringing the rifle into the Depository in that
bag, but you have to make all kinds of barely possible but highly
unlikely assumptions.
To even *begin* to take seriously the notion that Oswald didn't bring
the rifle into the Depository in the bag, one has to satisfactorily
Frazier and Randle testified that Oswald had a long package with him
that morning. If they were lying about the package to frame Oswald,
wouldn't they have stated the package was 38 inches long, the length
of the package found at the depository? If you are going to lie, why
not tell a lie that does the job properly?
If the police officers forged a paper bag to explain how Oswald
brought the rifle into the building unseen, wouldn't they have taken
the time to photograph it where they were going to claim it was
discovered on the sixth floor?
How could they have known so early in the investigation that no one
had seen Oswald with a rifle so that they would need something to
cover the rifle and properly frame Oswald?
How did they know to add fibers from a blanket?
How did they know in which blanket Oswald had kept the rifle or even
that he had kept the rifle in a blanket?
If they did plant the fibers, why not plant enough to make the
evidence conclusive?
More importantly, how would they have known that Randle and Frazier
were going to say they saw Oswald with a bag? They had not talked to
either one yet. They were both friends with Oswald, so what motivation
would they have to lie and frame him?
If Oswald did want curtain rods for his room, why did he have to go
home on a Thursday to get them when he could have easily have gotten
them over the weekend?
Where did he get the curtain rods?
Where did the curtain rods go?
Why did Oswald need curtain rods if there were curtain rods already
up?
How did Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint end up on the bag with an
impression of a rifle?
Where did the rifle in the Paine garage go, if it was not the
Mannlicher-Carcano found on the sixth floor of the Depository?
How did a rifle matching Oswald's appear in the Depository if it was
not brought there by him?
If he didn't take the rifle, why did Oswald, for the first time during
his entire marriage, leave his wedding ring at home (1H73)?
Then, probably the biggest one: why did Oswald lie to the cops about
even *having* a long bag?
.John
Ecagetx
2003-11-13 22:48:12 UTC
Permalink
POST it Clark..
I did not see , never have seen, any such compelling evidence or arguments from
you.. Post em
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is better
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To refresh
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first four
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those points"
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not addressing or
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.

I hope this latest summary of what you say you showed all points had "FAILED"
is a better performance than your last quick exit..

Ed Nov130740
clark wilkins
2003-11-14 04:55:43 UTC
Permalink
"Ecagetx" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@mb-m18.aol.com...
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is better
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To refresh
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first four
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those points"
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not addressing or
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
Post by Ecagetx
Here's some reasons that led me to believe that LHO acted ALONE
and that there was only the TSBD shooter. -- No frontal shooter
evidence has survived imo The LHO acted ALONE conclusion has
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
But only two wounds. What happened to the third bullet? Or are you going
to resort to the LN excuse that Oswald, who hit JFK twice, can't even hit
the car?

Examine how many times the FBI found each cartridge had been in the rifle.
One cartridge should stand out. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots above them.
Depends on when you want to cite them. One said a shot below and to the
left. And for hearing shots fired above them, not one looked up. None
heard anyone on the floor above them, which had a plywood floor with light
showing through the cracks.
Post by Ecagetx
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon.
I'll go with Oswald. Let's make it easy for you.
Post by Ecagetx
4) Oswald prints on MC.
No surprise. It's his rifle. I'll bet I can find your fingerprints in your
car. If someone steals your car and has an accident, according to you, you
did it and your fingerprints in the car prove it.

The more important question to ask is why are the fingerprints there on
the rifle? He knows about fingerprints. He was fingerprinted in New
Orleans. He also noted the word "fingerprints" in his notebook. So why did
Oswald not wear gloves or wipe the rifle? He had time to hide it. Why not
wipe his prints off?
Post by Ecagetx
5) MC found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
The rifle was found hidden between two boxes and under a third. Why did he
hide it?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
That's to be expected.
He worked on the sixth floor.
There were other fingerprints found there too. According to your logic,
that's proof of two shooters at the SN.
Post by Ecagetx
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
The rifle was already stored in a blanket which would carry no
fingerprints in the Paine's garage. Why did Oswald tranfer the rifle from
the blanket to the paperbag (When he knows about fingerprints) when he
could have just brought the rifle into the TSBD in the blanket?

And why does the paperbag contain no evidence of a disassembled rifle
being in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
Agreed. But why is the ammunition used copper jacketed? If FMJ ammunition
had not been used, would you be able to trace that ammo back to the rifle?

Who placed the order for the production of that ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
The rifle, in being delivered to the US from Italy, was first sent to
Canada. Do you know why?

The rifle as advertised could be bought with Italian SM ammunition and
clips. Yet Oswald did not buy any ammo or clips with the rifle. Why not?
Post by Ecagetx
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
Why did Oswald order the rifle under an alias?
Post by Ecagetx
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
Why is he carrying an "Hidell" Selective Service ID card in his wallet when
arrested with his picture on it? Do such ID Cards even have pictures?
Post by Ecagetx
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering wo paying.
"suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
"Suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Tippit.
And we still don't even know which direction he was walking.
Post by Ecagetx
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." A lie.
He also denied going to Mexico.
Why did he lie?
Post by Ecagetx
16)Oswald could not explain to Police why he took pistol to TT.
Was the pistol part of his planned "getaway"?
If so, for how long had he been planning to kill JFK in order to place the
pistol at his roominghouse?
Post by Ecagetx
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
Which means the pistol was already at the roominghouse. Care to explain
that?

Also, Oswald had to make the paperbag at work, without the rifle in front
of him, in order to take it with him to the Paine's. He had to guess at
the size of the bag. With the rifle already wrapped in the paine's garage,
why is he doing this?
Post by Ecagetx
18)Oswald took long bwn paper bag to work w him on 11-22-63AM.
Which cannot contain an assembled rifle, correct?
Got any evidence he disassembled the rifle and put it in the bag?

And why would he bother to disassemble the rifle to put it in the bag, when
it's already wrapped and assembled in the Paine's garage?

What tools did he use?

How was the bag not torn by the removal of the rifle?

Why, if the bag contained a rifle, does it have three fold marks on it?
Post by Ecagetx
19)Both Frazier and his sister confirm seeing Oswald with long
bwn paper bag on 11-22-63.
Which, by their descriptions, cannot contain a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained curtain rods.
He told the police it contained his lunch.
Why did he change stories?
Post by Ecagetx
21)Curtain rods never found.
No surprise. They never existed.
Let's see you put the rifle in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
22)Oswald denies he told Frazier he had curtain rods in long bwn bag.
And that, instead, it contained a 3 foot long sandwhich.
Now what are those creases doing in the bag again?
Post by Ecagetx
23)Oswald claims Frazier is lying about long bwn paper bag, curtain
rods.
Oswald lied.
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper bag.
Oswald inserts the rifle into the paperbag. It doesn't fit. He pulls it
out. You now have a blanket fiber in the paperbag. But you still don't
have a disassembled rifle in the paperbag, do you? Try and put the rifle
in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence proves the
shots
came from behind.
Where was Oswald in the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one not present
at TSBD role-call.
Why did he leave?
Didn't he know that would make him a suspect?
I repeat: Why did he leave?
Post by Ecagetx
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus, departure from
bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk
south of his boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
departure.)
Ill planned escape? Why did he have the taxi drive him one block past the
roominghouse? Why did he throw his jacket under a car after shooting
Tippitt? Why did he enter the theater?
Post by Ecagetx
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls revolver.
Suicide by police.

So, if Oswald is trying to escape, why didn't he get on a bus out of town
at the bus depot instead of catching a taxi there and going AWAY from it?
And why did he not have the taxi driver take him back to the bus depot?
Where is the bag that he packed? How far is he going to get on $ 13? Was
he headed towards the bus depot when arrested?
Post by Ecagetx
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
I'll bet you can't either.
Go ahead. Finish this sentence: "Oswald placed the Hidell ID card in his
wallet after October 21, 1963 because-?"
Post by Ecagetx
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire series) of BY
photo(s) - Another lie.
Who directed the police on how to find these BY photos?
Post by Ecagetx
If Oswald had conspiracy accomplices, WHERE were they?
Tell us again - How were you going to have Oswald escape town again if he
acted alone? What was his plan? I seem to have missed that in your 30
points. Was his plan to go to the library and read books? Take in a movie?
Shoot leaves in the city park with his pistol? Go look for Offficer
Tippitt? Tell us how the "Lone Ranger" here was going to get away. It's
your theory. Run with it.
Post by Ecagetx
WHO are they?
Who provided Oswald with his MC ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
I have just posted 30 reasons that the WCR has held up so well for
39+ years Jerry.
And you failed to make your case nearly all 30 times. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
CTs have been primarily limited to questions,
rather than evidence like I just posted.
You're first good point. CTer's are primarily limited to questions -
questions LNers are generally unable to answer. However, there are some
CTer's who actually have evidence. The rest repeat wild speculation. Most
learned it from LNer's.
Post by Ecagetx
My 30 points will NOT in all
likelihood be rebutted w 30 conflicting points of evidence -
We'll see. It seems to me you still haven't put that rifle in the
paperbag. If it's not in the paperbag what happens to your other 29
points? Go ahead! Put it in the bag. We're all waiting. I'm sure you can
show us all a WC photo with the rifle in the bag. Give us the exhibit
number? After all, without that exhibit, you have nothing - just 30 wasted
points.

- Instead
Post by Ecagetx
if you will observe as I have CTs will respond with "Can you prove
it?"
What's wrong with that question? LNer's constantly ask CTer's "Can you
prove it?" It's seems to me turnabout is fair play. Can you prove there is
a rifle inside the paperbag that Oswald carried into the TSBD? What if
there isn't? What happens to your theory?
Post by Ecagetx
and "What if?" type questions in lieu of evidence.
The "What if" question is asked again above. You list the evidence that
the rifle is inside the paperbag and I'll list the evidence that it's not
- And the blanket fiber is meaningless. So go ahead! Put the rifle in the
paperbag. You say it's in there. Demonstrate it.

Questions are
Post by Ecagetx
not evidence.
But an empty paperbag is.


::Clark::
Ed Cage
2003-11-15 01:56:38 UTC
Permalink
. Clark Wilkins:
"Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."

Clark: For complete & accurate documentation, the entire thread
can be seen under, "Reasons Why LHO acted ALONE" Here's the
first 5 of my original 30 points:
1) Consensus: 3 shots; FACT:3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Consensus of three 5th floor ear witnesses is that there were
3 shots above them or in their immediate vicinity.
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon. (Euins, Brennan)
4) Oswald prints on MC.
5) Oswald's rifle was found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.

Clark all of YOUR/MY quotes can be DOCUMENTED fully under,
"Reasons Why LFO acted ALONE" (Oct-7-12, 2003)
Among your quotes were:
* CW: "Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
* CW: "Oswald's prints on the rifle are somewhat meaningless."
* CW: "..even if someone else's prints are on the trigger guard,
my vote is still for Oswald at the SN."
* CW: "So all four of your points suffer from some flaw or
another and you still have 26 more to go (And that's with me
agreeing with you that LHO is the shooter at the SN)"

Clark you also AGREED that it was Oswald's rifle on 6th floor..
But I felt you realized I made good points and were preparing for
a quick exit so I started a new thread just for you and me.. And
that was pretty well the end of it ...
Clark, you even acknowledge/Admit Oswald was the shooter and
you even said,CW: "Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<--We AGREE
here Clark!!! Where do we go from here and WHY?

Ed Cage Nov140829
Questions are not evidence Clark.
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To
refresh
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first four
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not addressing
or
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
clark wilkins
2003-11-15 04:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
"Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
Clark: For complete & accurate documentation, the entire thread
can be seen under, "Reasons Why LHO acted ALONE"
That's exactly what I pointed out in my first response to this thread.
Post by Ed Cage
Here's the
1) Consensus: 3 shots; FACT:3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Consensus of three 5th floor ear witnesses is that there were
3 shots above them or in their immediate vicinity.
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon. (Euins, Brennan)
4) Oswald prints on MC.
5) Oswald's rifle was found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
Clark all of YOUR/MY quotes can be DOCUMENTED fully under,
"Reasons Why LFO acted ALONE" (Oct-7-12, 2003)
Yes.
And that helps you how?
Post by Ed Cage
* CW: "Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
* CW: "Oswald's prints on the rifle are somewhat meaningless."
* CW: "..even if someone else's prints are on the trigger guard,
my vote is still for Oswald at the SN."
* CW: "So all four of your points suffer from some flaw or
another and you still have 26 more to go (And that's with me
agreeing with you that LHO is the shooter at the SN)"
Clark you also AGREED that it was Oswald's rifle on 6th floor..
You haven't misquoted me.
I stated all the above.
Post by Ed Cage
But I felt you realized I made good points and were preparing for
a quick exit so I started a new thread just for you and me.. And
that was pretty well the end of it ...
You seem to connect the paperbag to the transportation of the rifle. That
is an assumption that is an incredible stretch of the imagination, IMO.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark, you even acknowledge/Admit Oswald was the shooter and
you even said,CW: "Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<--We AGREE
here Clark!!! Where do we go from here and WHY?
Because the issue of how the rifle was moved from the Paine's garage to
the TSBD is in serious doubt. To believe the rifle is in the bag requires
at least some supporting evidence (versus none) and, even if true,
requires Oswald to be a total moron. No one could possibly be this stupid.
Disassembly of the rifle is completely unnecessary to transport it. All he
had to do was untape the bottom of the paper bag and the rifle will fit OR
all he had to do was just pick up the blanket in which the rifle was
already wrapped and tied and carry it in using the blanket. There is no
evidence the rifle was in the bag brought into the TSBD but there is
evidence it was not. There is no evidence he disassembled the rifle but
there is evidence he did not. There is no evidence that he even had the
means to disassemble and reassemble the rifle (An ordinary dime won't
work).

None of what you describe addresses the issue of how the rifle got into
the TSBD. What you address describes what we were supposed to believe was
the means the rifle entered the TSBD. There is a significant diiference.
Post by Ed Cage
Ed Cage Nov140829
Questions are not evidence Clark.
All you have are unanswered questions on how the rifle entered the TSBD.


::Clark::
Paul Seaton
2003-11-15 20:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
All you have are unanswered questions on how the rifle entered the TSBD.
Clark,

If not in the bag, how / when did the rifle get into the tsbd iyo ??

(non rhetorical question btw )

paul s
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
All you have are unanswered questions on how the rifle entered the TSBD.
Clark,
If not in the bag, how / when did the rifle get into the tsbd iyo ??
I guess that's the $64,000 question. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
clark wilkins
2003-11-16 16:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
All you have are unanswered questions on how the rifle entered the TSBD.
Clark,
If not in the bag, how / when did the rifle get into the tsbd iyo ??
I guess that's the $64,000 question. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
Yes. It is the $ 64,000 question. Unfortunately, I have no theory on the
assassination as to how it occurred. I have info prior to the 11/22/63 and I
have info post 11/22/63, but I have no more info on what happened on
11/22/63 than Ed Cage. At best, I can offer that the rifle was transported
by the owner of the fingerprint James found. But I also believe that the
only reason the idiocy of the argument that the rifle is in the paper "bag"
(Which isn't even a bag) is believed is that the absence that fantasy
requires belief in yet another fantasy explanation - that being of how else
did the rifle get in?
Both views stretch credibility to the breaking point. Only an idiot would
believe the rifle is in the paperbag. Yet only an idiot would believe it is
not. We have zero evidence the rifle is in the bag and much evidence,
including common sense, that it is not. Yet if it is not in the bag, then
how did it get in? It is a contradiction without resolution. My own view is
rather simple in order to fit either scenario. Either the rifle is in the
bag or it was intended that we believe the bag contained the rifle. I see no
other possibilities. Ether way, Oswald is a willing participant to its
transportation - And I have absolutely no reason to believe he brought the
rifle to work that day to sell it as some claim.


Just a thought.


::Clark::
John Hill
2003-11-17 19:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by John Hill
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
All you have are unanswered questions on how the rifle entered the
TSBD.
Post by John Hill
Post by Ed Cage
Clark,
If not in the bag, how / when did the rifle get into the tsbd iyo ??
I guess that's the $64,000 question. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
Yes. It is the $ 64,000 question. Unfortunately, I have no theory on the
assassination as to how it occurred.
All I could offer as a potential explanation is that ***IF*** the M-C wasn't
in the package (which now appears to me to be the case), then an accomplice
would have had to have transported it, obviously. :-)
As to who that accomplice might have been - I can only refer to the scenario
that involves anti-Castro Cbans as an example. I suppose it's not impossible
that one of "them" talked Oswald into loaning them his rifle.
I also find it potentially instructive to recall that (if I recall
correctly) the closest thing we have to a Walker shooting witness saw TWO
men running away from the scene. ***IF*** that's the case, we have a real
likely accomplice for one shooting. Who's to say that person might not then
go on to be an accomplice for anoter shooting?
Post by clark wilkins
I have info prior to the 11/22/63 and I
have info post 11/22/63, but I have no more info on what happened on
11/22/63 than Ed Cage. At best, I can offer that the rifle was transported
by the owner of the fingerprint James found. But I also believe that the
only reason the idiocy of the argument that the rifle is in the paper "bag"
(Which isn't even a bag) is believed is that the absence that fantasy
requires belief in yet another fantasy explanation - that being of how else
did the rifle get in?
I think that's fair enough.
Post by clark wilkins
Both views stretch credibility to the breaking point. Only an idiot would
believe the rifle is in the paperbag. Yet only an idiot would believe it is
not.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. :-)
Post by clark wilkins
We have zero evidence the rifle is in the bag and much evidence,
including common sense, that it is not. Yet if it is not in the bag, then
how did it get in?
If only I knew. I could write a book. :-)
Post by clark wilkins
It is a contradiction without resolution. My own view is
rather simple in order to fit either scenario. Either the rifle is in the
bag or it was intended that we believe the bag contained the rifle. I see no
other possibilities. Ether way, Oswald is a willing participant to its
transportation
That may well be true.
Post by clark wilkins
- And I have absolutely no reason to believe he brought the
rifle to work that day to sell it as some claim.
Agreed. I'm aware of no evidence that was the case.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by clark wilkins
Just a thought.
Ed Cage
2003-11-19 15:19:58 UTC
Permalink
John Hill:
You respond to the
"EMPTY blanket Marina said contained Oswald's rifle"
with..

"Citation please?"

You will be a JFK Curator in no time Professor Hill.
Your trademark seems to be "NO EVIDENCE" John Hill..
John Hill QUOTE:====================================
"I am certain of only two things, Kennedy was killed
on 11-22-63 and the head shot
was at 313"<--Actual John Hill QUOTE
=====================================================

I don't think I can help you any further John.. May I
suggest you turn yer QUESTION Blow-Torch elsewhere?
You honestly lack the OBJECTIVITY to converse with John Hill..
Sorry, but it's true. (See above two quotes from you)
At least I have SOURCES John..

Ed Cage Nov160312
QUESTIONS are not EVIDENCE John Hill.
Post by Ed Cage
"Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
Clark: For complete & accurate documentation, the entire thread
can be seen under, "Reasons Why LHO acted ALONE" Here's the
1) Consensus: 3 shots; FACT:3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Consensus of three 5th floor ear witnesses is that there were
3 shots above them or in their immediate vicinity.
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon. (Euins, Brennan)
4) Oswald prints on MC.
5) Oswald's rifle was found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
Clark all of YOUR/MY quotes can be DOCUMENTED fully under,
"Reasons Why LFO acted ALONE" (Oct-7-12, 2003)
* CW: "Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
* CW: "Oswald's prints on the rifle are somewhat meaningless."
* CW: "..even if someone else's prints are on the trigger guard,
my vote is still for Oswald at the SN."
* CW: "So all four of your points suffer from some flaw or
another and you still have 26 more to go (And that's with me
agreeing with you that LHO is the shooter at the SN)"
Clark you also AGREED that it was Oswald's rifle on 6th floor..
But I felt you realized I made good points and were preparing for
a quick exit so I started a new thread just for you and me.. And
that was pretty well the end of it ...
Clark, you even acknowledge/Admit Oswald was the shooter and
you even said,CW: "Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<--We AGREE
here Clark!!! Where do we go from here and WHY?
Ed Cage Nov140829
Questions are not evidence Clark.
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To
refresh
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first four
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not addressing
or
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:25:22 UTC
Permalink
That's 30 for 30, eD.

I'm sure you'll now retract your statement that Clark only addressed 4 of
them - won't you, eD?
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To
refresh
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first four
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not
addressing
Post by clark wilkins
or
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
Post by Ecagetx
Here's some reasons that led me to believe that LHO acted ALONE
and that there was only the TSBD shooter. -- No frontal shooter
evidence has survived imo The LHO acted ALONE conclusion has
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
But only two wounds. What happened to the third bullet? Or are you going
to resort to the LN excuse that Oswald, who hit JFK twice, can't even hit
the car?
Examine how many times the FBI found each cartridge had been in the rifle.
One cartridge should stand out. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots above them.
Depends on when you want to cite them. One said a shot below and to the
left. And for hearing shots fired above them, not one looked up. None
heard anyone on the floor above them, which had a plywood floor with light
showing through the cracks.
Post by Ecagetx
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon.
I'll go with Oswald. Let's make it easy for you.
Post by Ecagetx
4) Oswald prints on MC.
No surprise. It's his rifle. I'll bet I can find your fingerprints in your
car. If someone steals your car and has an accident, according to you, you
did it and your fingerprints in the car prove it.
The more important question to ask is why are the fingerprints there on
the rifle? He knows about fingerprints. He was fingerprinted in New
Orleans. He also noted the word "fingerprints" in his notebook. So why did
Oswald not wear gloves or wipe the rifle? He had time to hide it. Why not
wipe his prints off?
Post by Ecagetx
5) MC found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
The rifle was found hidden between two boxes and under a third. Why did he
hide it?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
That's to be expected.
He worked on the sixth floor.
There were other fingerprints found there too. According to your logic,
that's proof of two shooters at the SN.
Post by Ecagetx
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
The rifle was already stored in a blanket which would carry no
fingerprints in the Paine's garage. Why did Oswald tranfer the rifle from
the blanket to the paperbag (When he knows about fingerprints) when he
could have just brought the rifle into the TSBD in the blanket?
And why does the paperbag contain no evidence of a disassembled rifle
being in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
Agreed. But why is the ammunition used copper jacketed? If FMJ ammunition
had not been used, would you be able to trace that ammo back to the rifle?
Who placed the order for the production of that ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
The rifle, in being delivered to the US from Italy, was first sent to
Canada. Do you know why?
The rifle as advertised could be bought with Italian SM ammunition and
clips. Yet Oswald did not buy any ammo or clips with the rifle. Why not?
Post by Ecagetx
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
Why did Oswald order the rifle under an alias?
Post by Ecagetx
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
Why is he carrying an "Hidell" Selective Service ID card in his wallet when
arrested with his picture on it? Do such ID Cards even have pictures?
Post by Ecagetx
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering wo paying.
"suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
"Suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Tippit.
And we still don't even know which direction he was walking.
Post by Ecagetx
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." A lie.
He also denied going to Mexico.
Why did he lie?
Post by Ecagetx
16)Oswald could not explain to Police why he took pistol to TT.
Was the pistol part of his planned "getaway"?
If so, for how long had he been planning to kill JFK in order to place the
pistol at his roominghouse?
Post by Ecagetx
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
Which means the pistol was already at the roominghouse. Care to explain
that?
Also, Oswald had to make the paperbag at work, without the rifle in front
of him, in order to take it with him to the Paine's. He had to guess at
the size of the bag. With the rifle already wrapped in the paine's garage,
why is he doing this?
Post by Ecagetx
18)Oswald took long bwn paper bag to work w him on 11-22-63AM.
Which cannot contain an assembled rifle, correct?
Got any evidence he disassembled the rifle and put it in the bag?
And why would he bother to disassemble the rifle to put it in the bag, when
it's already wrapped and assembled in the Paine's garage?
What tools did he use?
How was the bag not torn by the removal of the rifle?
Why, if the bag contained a rifle, does it have three fold marks on it?
Post by Ecagetx
19)Both Frazier and his sister confirm seeing Oswald with long
bwn paper bag on 11-22-63.
Which, by their descriptions, cannot contain a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained curtain rods.
He told the police it contained his lunch.
Why did he change stories?
Post by Ecagetx
21)Curtain rods never found.
No surprise. They never existed.
Let's see you put the rifle in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
22)Oswald denies he told Frazier he had curtain rods in long bwn bag.
And that, instead, it contained a 3 foot long sandwhich.
Now what are those creases doing in the bag again?
Post by Ecagetx
23)Oswald claims Frazier is lying about long bwn paper bag, curtain
rods.
Oswald lied.
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper bag.
Oswald inserts the rifle into the paperbag. It doesn't fit. He pulls it
out. You now have a blanket fiber in the paperbag. But you still don't
have a disassembled rifle in the paperbag, do you? Try and put the rifle
in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence proves the
shots
came from behind.
Where was Oswald in the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one not present
at TSBD role-call.
Why did he leave?
Didn't he know that would make him a suspect?
I repeat: Why did he leave?
Post by Ecagetx
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus, departure from
bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk
south of his boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
departure.)
Ill planned escape? Why did he have the taxi drive him one block past the
roominghouse? Why did he throw his jacket under a car after shooting
Tippitt? Why did he enter the theater?
Post by Ecagetx
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls revolver.
Suicide by police.
So, if Oswald is trying to escape, why didn't he get on a bus out of town
at the bus depot instead of catching a taxi there and going AWAY from it?
And why did he not have the taxi driver take him back to the bus depot?
Where is the bag that he packed? How far is he going to get on $ 13? Was
he headed towards the bus depot when arrested?
Post by Ecagetx
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
I'll bet you can't either.
Go ahead. Finish this sentence: "Oswald placed the Hidell ID card in his
wallet after October 21, 1963 because-?"
Post by Ecagetx
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire series) of BY
photo(s) - Another lie.
Who directed the police on how to find these BY photos?
Post by Ecagetx
If Oswald had conspiracy accomplices, WHERE were they?
Tell us again - How were you going to have Oswald escape town again if he
acted alone? What was his plan? I seem to have missed that in your 30
points. Was his plan to go to the library and read books? Take in a movie?
Shoot leaves in the city park with his pistol? Go look for Offficer
Tippitt? Tell us how the "Lone Ranger" here was going to get away. It's
your theory. Run with it.
Post by Ecagetx
WHO are they?
Who provided Oswald with his MC ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
I have just posted 30 reasons that the WCR has held up so well for
39+ years Jerry.
And you failed to make your case nearly all 30 times. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
CTs have been primarily limited to questions,
rather than evidence like I just posted.
You're first good point. CTer's are primarily limited to questions -
questions LNers are generally unable to answer. However, there are some
CTer's who actually have evidence. The rest repeat wild speculation. Most
learned it from LNer's.
Post by Ecagetx
My 30 points will NOT in all
likelihood be rebutted w 30 conflicting points of evidence -
We'll see. It seems to me you still haven't put that rifle in the
paperbag. If it's not in the paperbag what happens to your other 29
points? Go ahead! Put it in the bag. We're all waiting. I'm sure you can
show us all a WC photo with the rifle in the bag. Give us the exhibit
number? After all, without that exhibit, you have nothing - just 30 wasted
points.
- Instead
Post by Ecagetx
if you will observe as I have CTs will respond with "Can you prove
it?"
What's wrong with that question? LNer's constantly ask CTer's "Can you
prove it?" It's seems to me turnabout is fair play. Can you prove there is
a rifle inside the paperbag that Oswald carried into the TSBD? What if
there isn't? What happens to your theory?
Post by Ecagetx
and "What if?" type questions in lieu of evidence.
The "What if" question is asked again above. You list the evidence that
the rifle is inside the paperbag and I'll list the evidence that it's not
- And the blanket fiber is meaningless. So go ahead! Put the rifle in the
paperbag. You say it's in there. Demonstrate it.
Questions are
Post by Ecagetx
not evidence.
But an empty paperbag is.
John Hill
2003-12-08 15:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
That's 30 for 30, eD.
I'm sure you'll now retract your statement that Clark only addressed 4 of
them - won't you, eD?
Apparently not.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by John Hill
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To
refresh
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first
four
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not
addressing
Post by clark wilkins
or
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
Post by Ecagetx
Here's some reasons that led me to believe that LHO acted ALONE
and that there was only the TSBD shooter. -- No frontal shooter
evidence has survived imo The LHO acted ALONE conclusion has
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
But only two wounds. What happened to the third bullet? Or are you going
to resort to the LN excuse that Oswald, who hit JFK twice, can't even hit
the car?
Examine how many times the FBI found each cartridge had been in the rifle.
One cartridge should stand out. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots above them.
Depends on when you want to cite them. One said a shot below and to the
left. And for hearing shots fired above them, not one looked up. None
heard anyone on the floor above them, which had a plywood floor with light
showing through the cracks.
Post by Ecagetx
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon.
I'll go with Oswald. Let's make it easy for you.
Post by Ecagetx
4) Oswald prints on MC.
No surprise. It's his rifle. I'll bet I can find your fingerprints in your
car. If someone steals your car and has an accident, according to you, you
did it and your fingerprints in the car prove it.
The more important question to ask is why are the fingerprints there on
the rifle? He knows about fingerprints. He was fingerprinted in New
Orleans. He also noted the word "fingerprints" in his notebook. So why did
Oswald not wear gloves or wipe the rifle? He had time to hide it. Why not
wipe his prints off?
Post by Ecagetx
5) MC found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
The rifle was found hidden between two boxes and under a third. Why did he
hide it?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
That's to be expected.
He worked on the sixth floor.
There were other fingerprints found there too. According to your logic,
that's proof of two shooters at the SN.
Post by Ecagetx
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
The rifle was already stored in a blanket which would carry no
fingerprints in the Paine's garage. Why did Oswald tranfer the rifle from
the blanket to the paperbag (When he knows about fingerprints) when he
could have just brought the rifle into the TSBD in the blanket?
And why does the paperbag contain no evidence of a disassembled rifle
being in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
Agreed. But why is the ammunition used copper jacketed? If FMJ ammunition
had not been used, would you be able to trace that ammo back to the rifle?
Who placed the order for the production of that ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
The rifle, in being delivered to the US from Italy, was first sent to
Canada. Do you know why?
The rifle as advertised could be bought with Italian SM ammunition and
clips. Yet Oswald did not buy any ammo or clips with the rifle. Why not?
Post by Ecagetx
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
Why did Oswald order the rifle under an alias?
Post by Ecagetx
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
Why is he carrying an "Hidell" Selective Service ID card in his wallet
when
Post by clark wilkins
arrested with his picture on it? Do such ID Cards even have pictures?
Post by Ecagetx
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering wo paying.
"suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
"Suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Tippit.
And we still don't even know which direction he was walking.
Post by Ecagetx
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." A lie.
He also denied going to Mexico.
Why did he lie?
Post by Ecagetx
16)Oswald could not explain to Police why he took pistol to TT.
Was the pistol part of his planned "getaway"?
If so, for how long had he been planning to kill JFK in order to place the
pistol at his roominghouse?
Post by Ecagetx
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
Which means the pistol was already at the roominghouse. Care to explain
that?
Also, Oswald had to make the paperbag at work, without the rifle in front
of him, in order to take it with him to the Paine's. He had to guess at
the size of the bag. With the rifle already wrapped in the paine's garage,
why is he doing this?
Post by Ecagetx
18)Oswald took long bwn paper bag to work w him on 11-22-63AM.
Which cannot contain an assembled rifle, correct?
Got any evidence he disassembled the rifle and put it in the bag?
And why would he bother to disassemble the rifle to put it in the bag,
when
Post by clark wilkins
it's already wrapped and assembled in the Paine's garage?
What tools did he use?
How was the bag not torn by the removal of the rifle?
Why, if the bag contained a rifle, does it have three fold marks on it?
Post by Ecagetx
19)Both Frazier and his sister confirm seeing Oswald with long
bwn paper bag on 11-22-63.
Which, by their descriptions, cannot contain a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained curtain rods.
He told the police it contained his lunch.
Why did he change stories?
Post by Ecagetx
21)Curtain rods never found.
No surprise. They never existed.
Let's see you put the rifle in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
22)Oswald denies he told Frazier he had curtain rods in long bwn bag.
And that, instead, it contained a 3 foot long sandwhich.
Now what are those creases doing in the bag again?
Post by Ecagetx
23)Oswald claims Frazier is lying about long bwn paper bag, curtain
rods.
Oswald lied.
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper bag.
Oswald inserts the rifle into the paperbag. It doesn't fit. He pulls it
out. You now have a blanket fiber in the paperbag. But you still don't
have a disassembled rifle in the paperbag, do you? Try and put the rifle
in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence proves the
shots
came from behind.
Where was Oswald in the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one not present
at TSBD role-call.
Why did he leave?
Didn't he know that would make him a suspect?
I repeat: Why did he leave?
Post by Ecagetx
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus, departure from
bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk
south of his boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
departure.)
Ill planned escape? Why did he have the taxi drive him one block past the
roominghouse? Why did he throw his jacket under a car after shooting
Tippitt? Why did he enter the theater?
Post by Ecagetx
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls revolver.
Suicide by police.
So, if Oswald is trying to escape, why didn't he get on a bus out of town
at the bus depot instead of catching a taxi there and going AWAY from it?
And why did he not have the taxi driver take him back to the bus depot?
Where is the bag that he packed? How far is he going to get on $ 13? Was
he headed towards the bus depot when arrested?
Post by Ecagetx
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
I'll bet you can't either.
Go ahead. Finish this sentence: "Oswald placed the Hidell ID card in his
wallet after October 21, 1963 because-?"
Post by Ecagetx
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire series) of BY
photo(s) - Another lie.
Who directed the police on how to find these BY photos?
Post by Ecagetx
If Oswald had conspiracy accomplices, WHERE were they?
Tell us again - How were you going to have Oswald escape town again if he
acted alone? What was his plan? I seem to have missed that in your 30
points. Was his plan to go to the library and read books? Take in a movie?
Shoot leaves in the city park with his pistol? Go look for Offficer
Tippitt? Tell us how the "Lone Ranger" here was going to get away. It's
your theory. Run with it.
Post by Ecagetx
WHO are they?
Who provided Oswald with his MC ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
I have just posted 30 reasons that the WCR has held up so well for
39+ years Jerry.
And you failed to make your case nearly all 30 times. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
CTs have been primarily limited to questions,
rather than evidence like I just posted.
You're first good point. CTer's are primarily limited to questions -
questions LNers are generally unable to answer. However, there are some
CTer's who actually have evidence. The rest repeat wild speculation. Most
learned it from LNer's.
Post by Ecagetx
My 30 points will NOT in all
likelihood be rebutted w 30 conflicting points of evidence -
We'll see. It seems to me you still haven't put that rifle in the
paperbag. If it's not in the paperbag what happens to your other 29
points? Go ahead! Put it in the bag. We're all waiting. I'm sure you can
show us all a WC photo with the rifle in the bag. Give us the exhibit
number? After all, without that exhibit, you have nothing - just 30 wasted
points.
- Instead
Post by Ecagetx
if you will observe as I have CTs will respond with "Can you prove
it?"
What's wrong with that question? LNer's constantly ask CTer's "Can you
prove it?" It's seems to me turnabout is fair play. Can you prove there is
a rifle inside the paperbag that Oswald carried into the TSBD? What if
there isn't? What happens to your theory?
Post by Ecagetx
and "What if?" type questions in lieu of evidence.
The "What if" question is asked again above. You list the evidence that
the rifle is inside the paperbag and I'll list the evidence that it's not
- And the blanket fiber is meaningless. So go ahead! Put the rifle in the
paperbag. You say it's in there. Demonstrate it.
Questions are
Post by Ecagetx
not evidence.
But an empty paperbag is.
Ecagetx
2003-12-08 22:42:04 UTC
Permalink
John here are the "answers" Clark claimed to have refutted each of my 31 points
of evidence with. They are DOCUMENTED:
You say already answered and REFUTED" Allow me to post your "answer & refutes":
=====Clark ON 31points=======
1) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
3) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
4) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
5) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
6) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
7) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
8) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
9) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
10) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
11) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
12) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
13) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
14) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
15) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
16) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
17) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
18) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
19) That's YOUR problem, Ed. You even post the evidence that disproves your
case. You have TWO witnesses that testified the paper bag did not contain a
rifle. Therefore: Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
20) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
21) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
22) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
23) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
24) I have provided EVIDENCE, something you have not, that these fibers came
from a disassembled German Panzer tank that was inside the bag. You have FAILED
to refute this argument. So, once again: Does not explain how the rifle entered
the TSBD. 25) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
26) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
27) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
28) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
29) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
30) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
31) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD. Did you just figure out
you don't have any evidence? And that you have now proved you no evidence
THIRTY different ways?"
======Clark OFF 31points=======
Again these are DOCUMENTED; I could print out the Qs as well, but is it really
necessary? I feel like I know his answer.
John please don't stir up Clark "Bismarck in the bag" Wilkins. And no offense
to you, but I really do not wish to engage you in serious JFK dialog.
Ed Cage
John Hill
2003-12-09 02:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ecagetx
John here are the "answers" Clark claimed to have refutted each of my 31 points
=====Clark ON 31points=======
1) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
3) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
4) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
5) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
6) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
7) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
8) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
9) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
10) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
11) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
12) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
13) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
14) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
15) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
16) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
17) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
18) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
19) That's YOUR problem, Ed. You even post the evidence that disproves your
case. You have TWO witnesses that testified the paper bag did not contain a
rifle. Therefore: Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
20) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
21) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
22) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
23) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
24) I have provided EVIDENCE, something you have not, that these fibers came
from a disassembled German Panzer tank that was inside the bag. You have FAILED
to refute this argument. So, once again: Does not explain how the rifle entered
the TSBD. 25) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
26) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
27) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
28) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
29) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
30) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
31) Does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD. Did you just figure out
you don't have any evidence? And that you have now proved you no evidence
THIRTY different ways?"
======Clark OFF 31points=======
Again these are DOCUMENTED;
I know that Ed. I read them all (all 31) originally. It still looks to me
like he responded to all 31 of your questions.
Post by Ecagetx
I could print out the Qs as well, but is it really
necessary? I feel like I know his answer.
John please don't stir up Clark "Bismarck in the bag" Wilkins. And no offense
to you, but I really do not wish to engage you in serious JFK dialog.
I'd happily engage you in serious dialog if you'd just try it for once.
--
John Hill (joisa)
GMcNally
2003-12-08 22:43:15 UTC
Permalink
"John Hill" <***@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...

If I may comment.
Post by John Hill
That's 30 for 30, eD.
I'm sure you'll now retract your statement that Clark only addressed 4 of
them - won't you, eD?
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone" To
refresh
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first
four
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Clark loves to exaggerate. Methinks he's just having fun at our
expense.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not
addressing
or
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
Post by Ecagetx
Here's some reasons that led me to believe that LHO acted ALONE
and that there was only the TSBD shooter. -- No frontal shooter
evidence has survived imo The LHO acted ALONE conclusion has
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
But only two wounds. What happened to the third bullet? Or are you going
to resort to the LN excuse that Oswald, who hit JFK twice, can't even hit
the car?
Clark are you claiming that a missed shot is impossible? On what
basis?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Examine how many times the FBI found each cartridge had been in the rifle.
One cartridge should stand out. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots above them.
Depends on when you want to cite them. One said a shot below and to the
left. And for hearing shots fired above them, not one looked up. None
heard anyone on the floor above them, which had a plywood floor with light
showing through the cracks.
Not true, Clark. Norman says that he heard the cartridge cases strike
the floor.
Norman told the three after the shooting - the shooting is coming from
right above our head. Williams said: no shit.

I can't believe - CAN NOT BELIEVE - that you are arguing that there
was no 6th floor shooter -- are you, Clark? Nobody up there firing at
all?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon.
I'll go with Oswald. Let's make it easy for you.
Post by Ecagetx
4) Oswald prints on MC.
No surprise. It's his rifle. I'll bet I can find your fingerprints in your
car. If someone steals your car and has an accident, according to you, you
did it and your fingerprints in the car prove it.
His rifle? Not according to Oswald who claimed that he never owned a
rifle at any time.

There were fresh prints on the triggerguard. CSSU chief Day noticed
right away that they were similar to Oswald's. He photographed them
for that reason. Unfortunately the rifle was taken away by the FBI and
he was prevented from pursuing his own investigation.

As you claiming Oswald's rifle was not fired on 11/22/63? What are you
claiming?
The two bullets recovered were fired from Ozzie's MC.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
The more important question to ask is why are the fingerprints there on
the rifle? He knows about fingerprints. He was fingerprinted in New
Orleans. He also noted the word "fingerprints" in his notebook. So why did
Oswald not wear gloves or wipe the rifle? He had time to hide it. Why not
wipe his prints off?
You are asking us to read Oswald's mind? How are we to do this, Clark?

How can one answer these questions: why did Ozzie do A and not B?

Why did OJ use a knife instead of a gun? Got an answer for that? Why
didn't Hinkley lob a grenade? Any ideas?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
5) MC found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
The rifle was found hidden between two boxes and under a third. Why did he
hide it?
He didn't want people to find it. Obviously.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
That's to be expected.
He worked on the sixth floor.
There were other fingerprints found there too. According to your logic,
that's proof of two shooters at the SN.
Have a look at the WC diagram of the pattern of Oswald prints on the
boxes stacked to make a gun rest, boxes he sat on, boxes he leaned on
while waiting for JFK to come by.

It's as clear as the "trail of blood" that Marsha Clark showed to the
OJ jury.
It's all there if you want to see, if you don't self-blind yourself.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
The rifle was already stored in a blanket which would carry no
fingerprints in the Paine's garage. Why did Oswald tranfer the rifle from
the blanket to the paperbag (When he knows about fingerprints) when he
could have just brought the rifle into the TSBD in the blanket?
More "why did Oswald" type questions. What do you think you prove by
asking questions of this type?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
And why does the paperbag contain no evidence of a disassembled rifle
being in it?
What is the paperbag supposed to look like? How do you know? The FBI
said there were signs, scratches, that something had been in the bag.
Something hard. That's all they could say.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
Agreed. But why is the ammunition used copper jacketed? If FMJ ammunition
had not been used, would you be able to trace that ammo back to the rifle?
More "why" questions. A silly, silly waste of time, this type of
question.
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Who placed the order for the production of that ammunition?
Clark, are you serious? Where the hell are you going with this line of
questions?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
The rifle, in being delivered to the US from Italy, was first sent to
Canada. Do you know why?
The rifle as advertised could be bought with Italian SM ammunition and
clips. Yet Oswald did not buy any ammo or clips with the rifle. Why not?
Post by Ecagetx
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
Why did Oswald order the rifle under an alias?
Why did he use an alias? How do we know why he did A rather than B?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
Why is he carrying an "Hidell" Selective Service ID card in his wallet
when
Post by clark wilkins
arrested with his picture on it? Do such ID Cards even have pictures?
More questions. Do you imagine that you are accomplishing anything
with them?

I'll leave off here.

What has Clark proved: nothing. He's asked a lot of silly questions of
the type: why did Oswald do A (rather than B)?

Pointless questions.

Jerry
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering wo paying.
"suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
"Suicide by police".
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Tippit.
And we still don't even know which direction he was walking.
Post by Ecagetx
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." A lie.
He also denied going to Mexico.
Why did he lie?
Post by Ecagetx
16)Oswald could not explain to Police why he took pistol to TT.
Was the pistol part of his planned "getaway"?
If so, for how long had he been planning to kill JFK in order to place the
pistol at his roominghouse?
Post by Ecagetx
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
Which means the pistol was already at the roominghouse. Care to explain
that?
Also, Oswald had to make the paperbag at work, without the rifle in front
of him, in order to take it with him to the Paine's. He had to guess at
the size of the bag. With the rifle already wrapped in the paine's garage,
why is he doing this?
Post by Ecagetx
18)Oswald took long bwn paper bag to work w him on 11-22-63AM.
Which cannot contain an assembled rifle, correct?
Got any evidence he disassembled the rifle and put it in the bag?
And why would he bother to disassemble the rifle to put it in the bag,
when
Post by clark wilkins
it's already wrapped and assembled in the Paine's garage?
What tools did he use?
How was the bag not torn by the removal of the rifle?
Why, if the bag contained a rifle, does it have three fold marks on it?
Post by Ecagetx
19)Both Frazier and his sister confirm seeing Oswald with long
bwn paper bag on 11-22-63.
Which, by their descriptions, cannot contain a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained curtain rods.
He told the police it contained his lunch.
Why did he change stories?
Post by Ecagetx
21)Curtain rods never found.
No surprise. They never existed.
Let's see you put the rifle in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
22)Oswald denies he told Frazier he had curtain rods in long bwn bag.
And that, instead, it contained a 3 foot long sandwhich.
Now what are those creases doing in the bag again?
Post by Ecagetx
23)Oswald claims Frazier is lying about long bwn paper bag, curtain
rods.
Oswald lied.
Why?
Post by Ecagetx
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper bag.
Oswald inserts the rifle into the paperbag. It doesn't fit. He pulls it
out. You now have a blanket fiber in the paperbag. But you still don't
have a disassembled rifle in the paperbag, do you? Try and put the rifle
in the bag.
Post by Ecagetx
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence proves the
shots
came from behind.
Where was Oswald in the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one not present
at TSBD role-call.
Why did he leave?
Didn't he know that would make him a suspect?
I repeat: Why did he leave?
Post by Ecagetx
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus, departure from
bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk
south of his boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
departure.)
Ill planned escape? Why did he have the taxi drive him one block past the
roominghouse? Why did he throw his jacket under a car after shooting
Tippitt? Why did he enter the theater?
Post by Ecagetx
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls revolver.
Suicide by police.
So, if Oswald is trying to escape, why didn't he get on a bus out of town
at the bus depot instead of catching a taxi there and going AWAY from it?
And why did he not have the taxi driver take him back to the bus depot?
Where is the bag that he packed? How far is he going to get on $ 13? Was
he headed towards the bus depot when arrested?
Post by Ecagetx
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
I'll bet you can't either.
Go ahead. Finish this sentence: "Oswald placed the Hidell ID card in his
wallet after October 21, 1963 because-?"
Post by Ecagetx
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire series) of BY
photo(s) - Another lie.
Who directed the police on how to find these BY photos?
Post by Ecagetx
If Oswald had conspiracy accomplices, WHERE were they?
Tell us again - How were you going to have Oswald escape town again if he
acted alone? What was his plan? I seem to have missed that in your 30
points. Was his plan to go to the library and read books? Take in a movie?
Shoot leaves in the city park with his pistol? Go look for Offficer
Tippitt? Tell us how the "Lone Ranger" here was going to get away. It's
your theory. Run with it.
Post by Ecagetx
WHO are they?
Who provided Oswald with his MC ammunition?
Post by Ecagetx
I have just posted 30 reasons that the WCR has held up so well for
39+ years Jerry.
And you failed to make your case nearly all 30 times. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
CTs have been primarily limited to questions,
rather than evidence like I just posted.
You're first good point. CTer's are primarily limited to questions -
questions LNers are generally unable to answer. However, there are some
CTer's who actually have evidence. The rest repeat wild speculation. Most
learned it from LNer's.
Post by Ecagetx
My 30 points will NOT in all
likelihood be rebutted w 30 conflicting points of evidence -
We'll see. It seems to me you still haven't put that rifle in the
paperbag. If it's not in the paperbag what happens to your other 29
points? Go ahead! Put it in the bag. We're all waiting. I'm sure you can
show us all a WC photo with the rifle in the bag. Give us the exhibit
number? After all, without that exhibit, you have nothing - just 30 wasted
points.
- Instead
Post by Ecagetx
if you will observe as I have CTs will respond with "Can you prove
it?"
What's wrong with that question? LNer's constantly ask CTer's "Can you
prove it?" It's seems to me turnabout is fair play. Can you prove there is
a rifle inside the paperbag that Oswald carried into the TSBD? What if
there isn't? What happens to your theory?
Post by Ecagetx
and "What if?" type questions in lieu of evidence.
The "What if" question is asked again above. You list the evidence that
the rifle is inside the paperbag and I'll list the evidence that it's not
- And the blanket fiber is meaningless. So go ahead! Put the rifle in the
paperbag. You say it's in there. Demonstrate it.
Questions are
Post by Ecagetx
not evidence.
But an empty paperbag is.
John Hill
2003-12-09 02:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by GMcNally
If I may comment.
Post by John Hill
That's 30 for 30, eD.
I'm sure you'll now retract your statement that Clark only addressed 4 of
them - won't you, eD?
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by clark wilkins
<SNIP>
Post by Ecagetx
I hope whatever you post (If you don't post it; I can't respond) is
better
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
than your performance on my thread: "Reasons Why LHO acted Alone"
To
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
refresh
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
your memory I posted 30 (THIRTY) points then you addressed the first
four
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
(inadequately imo..) then ANNOUNCED: "There I have killed all of those
points"
Clark loves to exaggerate. Methinks he's just having fun at our
expense.
I agree. If only Ed got it.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
<--Paraphrasing from memory..word "killed" may not be exact wording..
Then you.. Let's just say, you "lost interest" and wound up not
addressing
or
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
"killing" any of the remaining 26 pts.. Impressive.
Apparently counting past four is not one of your strongpoints. Here is the
very post you say I responded to on only the first four points. Now count
Post by Ecagetx
Here's some reasons that led me to believe that LHO acted ALONE
and that there was only the TSBD shooter. -- No frontal shooter
evidence has survived imo The LHO acted ALONE conclusion has
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
But only two wounds. What happened to the third bullet? Or are you going
to resort to the LN excuse that Oswald, who hit JFK twice, can't even hit
the car?
Clark are you claiming that a missed shot is impossible? On what
basis?
It's certainly not impossible, though I have little faith in it.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Examine how many times the FBI found each cartridge had been in the rifle.
One cartridge should stand out. Why is that?
Post by Ecagetx
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots above them.
Depends on when you want to cite them. One said a shot below and to the
left. And for hearing shots fired above them, not one looked up. None
heard anyone on the floor above them, which had a plywood floor with light
showing through the cracks.
Not true, Clark. Norman says that he heard the cartridge cases strike
the floor.
Norman told the three after the shooting - the shooting is coming from
right above our head. Williams said: no shit.
I wonder if that was "no shit" as in "I agree," or "no shit?" as in "are
you kidding?"
Post by GMcNally
I can't believe - CAN NOT BELIEVE - that you are arguing that there
was no 6th floor shooter -- are you, Clark? Nobody up there firing at
all?
Oh, I, for one, do believe at least one shot, and quite possibly all 3,
were fired from there. I'm just not 100% sure it was Oswald firing them,
or that he had no help or encouragement.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
3) Oswald or shooter seen on 6th floor w weapon.
I'll go with Oswald. Let's make it easy for you.
Post by Ecagetx
4) Oswald prints on MC.
No surprise. It's his rifle. I'll bet I can find your fingerprints in your
car. If someone steals your car and has an accident, according to you, you
did it and your fingerprints in the car prove it.
His rifle? Not according to Oswald who claimed that he never owned a
rifle at any time.
Well, we all know that's a lie. His prints on his rifle, pretty
unsinister.
Post by GMcNally
There were fresh prints on the triggerguard. CSSU chief Day noticed
right away that they were similar to Oswald's. He photographed them
for that reason. Unfortunately the rifle was taken away by the FBI and
he was prevented from pursuing his own investigation.
And the FBI could never ID those prints.
Post by GMcNally
As you claiming Oswald's rifle was not fired on 11/22/63? What are you
claiming?
The two bullets recovered were fired from Ozzie's MC.
Agreed.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
The more important question to ask is why are the fingerprints there on
the rifle? He knows about fingerprints. He was fingerprinted in New
Orleans. He also noted the word "fingerprints" in his notebook. So why did
Oswald not wear gloves or wipe the rifle? He had time to hide it. Why not
wipe his prints off?
You are asking us to read Oswald's mind? How are we to do this, Clark?
How can one answer these questions: why did Ozzie do A and not B?
Why did OJ use a knife instead of a gun? Got an answer for that? Why
didn't Hinkley lob a grenade? Any ideas?
The Hinkley question - because he didn't have one. :-)
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
5) MC found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
The rifle was found hidden between two boxes and under a third. Why did he
hide it?
He didn't want people to find it. Obviously.
Obvious if you believe it was Oswald who put it there.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
That's to be expected.
He worked on the sixth floor.
There were other fingerprints found there too. According to your logic,
that's proof of two shooters at the SN.
Have a look at the WC diagram of the pattern of Oswald prints on the
boxes stacked to make a gun rest, boxes he sat on, boxes he leaned on
while waiting for JFK to come by.
It's as clear as the "trail of blood" that Marsha Clark showed to the
OJ jury.
It's all there if you want to see, if you don't self-blind yourself.
I agree the case against Oswald is pretty good. But it doesn't answer all
my questions.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
The rifle was already stored in a blanket which would carry no
fingerprints in the Paine's garage. Why did Oswald tranfer the rifle from
the blanket to the paperbag (When he knows about fingerprints) when he
could have just brought the rifle into the TSBD in the blanket?
More "why did Oswald" type questions. What do you think you prove by
asking questions of this type?
SOME of them need to be asked because the supposed behavior seems so
strange.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
And why does the paperbag contain no evidence of a disassembled rifle
being in it?
What is the paperbag supposed to look like? How do you know? The FBI
said there were signs, scratches, that something had been in the bag.
Something hard. That's all they could say.
Which is not evidence of the rifle ever being in there.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
Agreed. But why is the ammunition used copper jacketed? If FMJ ammunition
had not been used, would you be able to trace that ammo back to the rifle?
More "why" questions. A silly, silly waste of time, this type of
question.
Often, but not always. Asking "why" has led to many of the greatest
discoveries of mankind.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Who placed the order for the production of that ammunition?
Clark, are you serious? Where the hell are you going with this line of
questions?
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
The rifle, in being delivered to the US from Italy, was first sent to
Canada. Do you know why?
The rifle as advertised could be bought with Italian SM ammunition and
clips. Yet Oswald did not buy any ammo or clips with the rifle. Why not?
Post by Ecagetx
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
Why did Oswald order the rifle under an alias?
Why did he use an alias? How do we know why he did A rather than B?
I assume he had SOME reason.
Post by GMcNally
Post by John Hill
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
Why is he carrying an "Hidell" Selective Service ID card in his wallet
when
Post by clark wilkins
arrested with his picture on it? Do such ID Cards even have pictures?
More questions. Do you imagine that you are accomplishing anything
with them?
Well Oswald made the fake SS card from a real one and real ones don't have
photos on them. I am curious to know why he decided to include one on the
fake card.
Post by GMcNally
I'll leave off here.
What has Clark proved: nothing. He's asked a lot of silly questions of
the type: why did Oswald do A (rather than B)?
Pointless questions.
Not always, Jerry.
--
John Hill (joisa)

clark wilkins
2003-11-14 04:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ecagetx
POST it Clark..
I did not see , never have seen, any such compelling evidence or arguments from
you.. Post em <SNIP>
I hope this latest summary of what you say you showed all points had "FAILED"
is a better performance than your last quick exit..
Ed Nov130740
No problem - seeing as how it was posted just three days ago and which
required you to start this whole new thread in order to avoid it.
Post by Ecagetx
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that Randall and
Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "far too short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald John Hill..
And both identified that it was too short to carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
2) There were fibers from the blanket on the bag.
They couldn't positively ID the fibers were from the blanket. However,
let's assume the fibers in the bag came from the blanket. That would be
evidence that Oswald took the rifle out of the blanket and inserted into
the bag, leaving the fibers behind. But he would have then found it didn't
fit, correct? So he then would have had to take it back out of the bag,
correct? And the bag now has the blanket fiber inside it, correct?

Now how is this proof or even evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the
TSBD? It seems to be evidence that Oswald found the rifle wouldn't fit in
the bag. I believe the blanket came from East Germany, which means, by
your logic, that the bag could have contained a German Panzer tank since,
like the rifle, it won't fit in the bag either. Yet the tank could have a
similar blanket fiber on it and transferred it to the bag when Oswald
tried to fit German Panzer tank (Probably a King Tiger) into the paperbag.
Have I stated your logic correctly? If not, how is the fiber evidence Lee
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
3) The bag had Oswald's prints on it.
Yes. That would be from his carrying it into the TSBD, folded too short to
carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
Too long for what? Maybe you mean the 8" side of the bag? No. You can't
mean that. The disassembled rifle won't fit in the 8" direction. So you
must mean the MAXIMUM 5" width of the bag with the barrell turned sideways
to rotate the scope to the side. But, no. You can't mean that because then
the trigger would punch a hole through the side of the bag. So what do you
mean?
Post by Ecagetx
5) The fold marks in the middle are likely how Oswald got it out of the
TSBD and took it home wo arousing suspicion. He folded it John before
putting the rifle in it.
Yes. But there appears to be seven folds in the bag from when he did this,
not three. Careuleo counted them up and posted a link to a picture of the
folds.

This is evidence the bag was folded on Thursday in half (19" long), then
in half again (9.5" long) and then once more (4.75"). He then folded it
once more lengthwise, reducing the entire package down to 4.75" X 4".
Interestingly enough, my pants back pockets are 6" X 6". Coincidence?

But on Friday, the bag now has three folds - the top fold when he placed
it in Frazier's car and the middle fold when he carried it into the TSBD.

Now how is the evidence that the bag won't hold the rifle as folded
evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they really had no
reason to think was significant, can hardly be expected to come up w
accurate measurements.
Then how come they came up with the same measurement? They were both
exactly wrong in the same way?

7) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
Post by Ecagetx
11-22-63.
Yes. And it did not contain his lunch.
So we can rule out that it contained his lunch.
And it seems we can rule out it contained a rifle.
So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald reportedly said
"curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever found.
Correct. Oswald lied about what was in the bag. How is this evidence he
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
9) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag John Hill -- Not just
one; Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell completely flat.
The two witnesses both identified the bag could not contain a rifle. And
now we know it didn't contain curtain rods either. So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
10) Your interpretation of "far too short" does not square w the opinions
of investigators John Hill -- Additionally it's a subjective opinion as
well..
The folds on the bag are not subjective. They exist exactly where they
would be expected to be found as the two witnesses described the bag -
which cannot contain a rifle by their testimony.
Post by Ecagetx
11) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD - That is why it was folded when
he likely heisted the paper from the TSBD imo..
Which is denied by the inidividual in charge of the paper and tape.

But how is this evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
12) TWO witnesses to the LONG BROWN paper wrapping bag John.. TWO
Both who are against you.
You are citing two witnesses who prove you wrong.
I don't think that helps your case.

You're supposed to cite evidence that supports your case, not disproves
it. Maybe John can help you. He has a link on his site that contains
"massive" evidence the rifle was in the bag. Go grab it and come back!
Post by Ecagetx
13) Plus Oswald's "curtain rod" story to Frazier went kaput.. How do you
explain the missing "curtain rods" John Hill? Was Frazier trying to frame
Oswald by lying?
There were no curtain rods in the bag. Nor did it contain his lunch.
Oswald lied on both counts. Now where is your evidence that Lee brought
the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
I beg to disagree w you that there is any evidence Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to the TSBD.. To the contrary, there is evidence that he DID
take a long brwn bag to work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence? Well, let's just
say the evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that Oswald
DID take something long to work that morning..
He took something in the bag. How do you know that what was inside it was
long?
Post by Ecagetx
Covered completely in a
bag.
That could make it short, couldn't it?
Post by Ecagetx
I fail to see any evidence that "Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work"
Then HOW did he do it?
Post by Ecagetx
which was my question in response to Deb's statement that listening to
arguments that he did were hardly worth "listening to" - I say the
evidence is clear he took something
Yes.
Post by Ecagetx
long to work
How do you know it was long?
Post by Ecagetx
and that the "curtain
rods" were never found. His rifle WAS found; So were the same fibers from
the Paine garage blanket.. ON THE BAG!
In the bag - which means, in your best case scenario, that Oswald inserted
and then removed the rifle from the bag when he found it wouldn't fit.
Post by Ecagetx
There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a rifle to work 11-22-63
AM. There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Except it won't fit.
Minor detail.

My vote, since you've expertly ruled out that it contained a rifle, is
that it contained a World War II German Panther tank (disassembled of
course). Obviously, this left the German blanket fiber and was the "hard
object" Cadigan noted had been in the bag. There seems to be no other
logical explanation if we use your reasoning.


::Clark::


"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
Ed Cage
2003-11-14 23:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Clark:
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.

There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark… "0"
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor.. What does this tell you Clark?
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
Clark, like many CTers you:
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"

Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..

MR ;~D Nov141123
PS: We are all anxiously awaiting to see if you can do what I just did:
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Post by Ecagetx
POST it Clark..
I did not see , never have seen, any such compelling evidence or arguments from
you.. Post em <SNIP>
I hope this latest summary of what you say you showed all points had "FAILED"
is a better performance than your last quick exit..
Ed Nov130740
No problem - seeing as how it was posted just three days ago and which
required you to start this whole new thread in order to avoid it.
Post by Ecagetx
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that Randall and
Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "far too short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald John Hill..
And both identified that it was too short to carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
2) There were fibers from the blanket on the bag.
They couldn't positively ID the fibers were from the blanket. However,
let's assume the fibers in the bag came from the blanket. That would be
evidence that Oswald took the rifle out of the blanket and inserted into
the bag, leaving the fibers behind. But he would have then found it didn't
fit, correct? So he then would have had to take it back out of the bag,
correct? And the bag now has the blanket fiber inside it, correct?
Now how is this proof or even evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the
TSBD? It seems to be evidence that Oswald found the rifle wouldn't fit in
the bag. I believe the blanket came from East Germany, which means, by
your logic, that the bag could have contained a German Panzer tank since,
like the rifle, it won't fit in the bag either. Yet the tank could have a
similar blanket fiber on it and transferred it to the bag when Oswald
tried to fit German Panzer tank (Probably a King Tiger) into the paperbag.
Have I stated your logic correctly? If not, how is the fiber evidence Lee
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
3) The bag had Oswald's prints on it.
Yes. That would be from his carrying it into the TSBD, folded too short to
carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
Too long for what? Maybe you mean the 8" side of the bag? No. You can't
mean that. The disassembled rifle won't fit in the 8" direction. So you
must mean the MAXIMUM 5" width of the bag with the barrell turned sideways
to rotate the scope to the side. But, no. You can't mean that because then
the trigger would punch a hole through the side of the bag. So what do you
mean?
Post by Ecagetx
5) The fold marks in the middle are likely how Oswald got it out of the
TSBD and took it home wo arousing suspicion. He folded it John before
putting the rifle in it.
Yes. But there appears to be seven folds in the bag from when he did this,
not three. Careuleo counted them up and posted a link to a picture of the
folds.
This is evidence the bag was folded on Thursday in half (19" long), then
in half again (9.5" long) and then once more (4.75"). He then folded it
once more lengthwise, reducing the entire package down to 4.75" X 4".
Interestingly enough, my pants back pockets are 6" X 6". Coincidence?
But on Friday, the bag now has three folds - the top fold when he placed
it in Frazier's car and the middle fold when he carried it into the TSBD.
Now how is the evidence that the bag won't hold the rifle as folded
evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they really had no
reason to think was significant, can hardly be expected to come up w
accurate measurements.
Then how come they came up with the same measurement? They were both
exactly wrong in the same way?
7) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
Post by Ecagetx
11-22-63.
Yes. And it did not contain his lunch.
So we can rule out that it contained his lunch.
And it seems we can rule out it contained a rifle.
So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald reportedly said
"curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever found.
Correct. Oswald lied about what was in the bag. How is this evidence he
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
9) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag John Hill -- Not just
one; Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell completely flat.
The two witnesses both identified the bag could not contain a rifle. And
now we know it didn't contain curtain rods either. So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
10) Your interpretation of "far too short" does not square w the opinions
of investigators John Hill -- Additionally it's a subjective opinion as
well..
The folds on the bag are not subjective. They exist exactly where they
would be expected to be found as the two witnesses described the bag -
which cannot contain a rifle by their testimony.
Post by Ecagetx
11) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD - That is why it was folded when
he likely heisted the paper from the TSBD imo..
Which is denied by the inidividual in charge of the paper and tape.
But how is this evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
12) TWO witnesses to the LONG BROWN paper wrapping bag John.. TWO
Both who are against you.
You are citing two witnesses who prove you wrong.
I don't think that helps your case.
You're supposed to cite evidence that supports your case, not disproves
it. Maybe John can help you. He has a link on his site that contains
"massive" evidence the rifle was in the bag. Go grab it and come back!
Post by Ecagetx
13) Plus Oswald's "curtain rod" story to Frazier went kaput.. How do you
explain the missing "curtain rods" John Hill? Was Frazier trying to frame
Oswald by lying?
There were no curtain rods in the bag. Nor did it contain his lunch.
Oswald lied on both counts. Now where is your evidence that Lee brought
the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
I beg to disagree w you that there is any evidence Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to the TSBD.. To the contrary, there is evidence that he DID
take a long brwn bag to work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence? Well, let's just
say the evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that Oswald
DID take something long to work that morning..
He took something in the bag. How do you know that what was inside it was
long?
Post by Ecagetx
Covered completely in a
bag.
That could make it short, couldn't it?
Post by Ecagetx
I fail to see any evidence that "Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work"
Then HOW did he do it?
Post by Ecagetx
which was my question in response to Deb's statement that listening to
arguments that he did were hardly worth "listening to" - I say the
evidence is clear he took something
Yes.
Post by Ecagetx
long to work
How do you know it was long?
Post by Ecagetx
and that the "curtain
rods" were never found. His rifle WAS found; So were the same fibers from
the Paine garage blanket.. ON THE BAG!
In the bag - which means, in your best case scenario, that Oswald inserted
and then removed the rifle from the bag when he found it wouldn't fit.
Post by Ecagetx
There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a rifle to work 11-22-63
AM. There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Except it won't fit.
Minor detail.
My vote, since you've expertly ruled out that it contained a rifle, is
that it contained a World War II German Panther tank (disassembled of
course). Obviously, this left the German blanket fiber and was the "hard
object" Cadigan noted had been in the bag. There seems to be no other
logical explanation if we use your reasoning.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
clark wilkins
2003-11-15 06:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
I'm still waiting on you to present your evidence.
I repeat.
What is your evidence that the rifle was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
A bag both testified was too short to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark. "0"
So you have eyewitness testimony of Oswald carrying in a paperbag in which
the rifle, disassembled or otherwise, will not fit. How does disproving
your theory help your case?
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
The rifle cannot be transported from the Paine's garage to the TSBD
without LHO's participation in its transportation. So what is your
evidence he brought it in via the bag? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Yes. He said that.
So what is your evidence the rifle is in the bag?
Post by Ed Cage
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Which was a lie.
But that doesn't explain how the rifle got into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
That's because it's now on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
What is your evidence for how it got there?
Post by Ed Cage
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Insufficient match for a positive ID. Also, fibers were found that didn't
match the blanket.

And even if the fibers came from the blanket and were left by the rifle in
the bag, it is only evidence that Oswald inserted the rifle into the bag.
BY YOUR EXPLANATION HE THEN TOOK IT BACK OUT when he discovered it was too
long. So the fiber evidence is simply evidence that Lee inserted the rifle
in the "bag", found it was too long, and took it back out. If you have
evidence that he then disassembled the rifle and put it back in a second
time, please post it.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Why wouldn't they be there? He carried it in.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Actually, that's debatable. Check the tape width and also the testimony of
the man at the tape dispensor.

But let's ignore that evidence and say that Lee made the paperbag on
Thursday, Nov 21, folded it up, hid it on his person, and took it to the
Paine's. It's still not evidence of how the rifle entered the TSBD. It's
evidence Lee made a bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
No. The FBI examined the bag and Cadigan testified there were no
impressions or indentures in it that could be associated with the rifle.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
The rifle was fired and used in the assassination.
So how did it get in the TSBD?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor..
Yes.
Post by Ed Cage
What does this tell you Clark?
That he's shooting at JFK.

So how did the rifle get into the TSBD if the bag didn't contain a rifle
as all the evidence indicates?
Post by Ed Cage
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
It means that Oswald and nobody else but Oswald was in that window with
that rifle shooting at JFK. But how did the rifle get into the TSBD? The
evidence that he brought it in via the paperbag is exactly the same as the
evidence that he folded it up, put it in his wallet, and carried it in in
his back pocket.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the rifle was brought
into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
No 1964 Oldsmobiles were found on the sixth floor either. So tell us how the
rifle got into the TSBD and your supporting evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
No. Like many LNers you ignore that there is no evidence to support your
"rifle in the paperbag" agenda. So far, it seems to have only happened in
your imagination because you haven't posted one shred of evidence to
support a theory so unsubstantiated that it even requires Oswald to be a
complete moron - a mental midget who can't figure out how to untape a bag
he, himself, taped, or how to pick up and carry a blanket he, himself, had
tied in twine.
Post by Ed Cage
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
I have my own but it does not include how the rifle was transported into
the TSBD. James Olmstead has discovered a print on the triggerguard that
is not Oswald's which, if true, could explain how the rifle was
transported.

And, just to be clear, I have a question for you. If the rifle was not
brought in via the paperbag, did Oswald act alone?
Post by Ed Cage
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
I didn't have to ignore or discredit any evidence you presented. You
didn't present any. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the rifle was
in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"
Well... if it's not in the paperbag then that would be evidence Oswald did
not bring the rifle into the TSBD, wouldn't it?

And, so far, that is the case you have presented.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
I agree he is the shooter.
Post by Ed Cage
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..
Oswald.
Post by Ed Cage
MR ;~D Nov141123
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Not a long wait was it?


Just a fact.

::Clark::


"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
Ed Cage
2003-11-15 16:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Clark your tactic of DUCKING Qs and ignoring the
thread TOPIC is frustrating. I present EVIDENCE,
you counter w QUESTIONS..
If you have EVIDENCE (Not questions) that the
rifle was never dis-assembled, P*O*S*T it! And please
refrain from stating MY position(s).
HERE IS SOME OF MY EVIDENCE -- PLEASE POST YOURS
(Again questions are not EVIDENCE Clark):
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that
Randall and Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "too
short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald..
2) There were FIBERS from the blanket on the bag.
3) The bag had Oswald's PRINTS on it.
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
5) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they
really had no reason to think was significant, can hardly
be expected to come up w accurate measurements.
Translation: YOUR 27" EST. MIGHT BE WRONG CLARK..
6) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
11-22-63.
7) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald
reportedly said "curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever
found Clark..
8) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag Clark! --
Not just one; Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell
completely flat. (Curtain rods were NEVER FOUND Clark.)
10) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD -

There is evidence that Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to
work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence? Well, let's just say the
evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that
Oswald DID take something long to work that morning..
Covered completely in a bag.
Clark: There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a
rifle to work 11-22-63 AM.
There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.

Please present E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E as I have done.. Not more
"Clark=QUESTIONS." Questions are not evidence Clark..

Ed Cage Nov150348
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
I'm still waiting on you to present your evidence.
I repeat.
What is your evidence that the rifle was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
A bag both testified was too short to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark. "0"
So you have eyewitness testimony of Oswald carrying in a paperbag in which
the rifle, disassembled or otherwise, will not fit. How does disproving
your theory help your case?
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
The rifle cannot be transported from the Paine's garage to the TSBD
without LHO's participation in its transportation. So what is your
evidence he brought it in via the bag? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Yes. He said that.
So what is your evidence the rifle is in the bag?
Post by Ed Cage
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Which was a lie.
But that doesn't explain how the rifle got into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
That's because it's now on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
What is your evidence for how it got there?
Post by Ed Cage
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Insufficient match for a positive ID. Also, fibers were found that didn't
match the blanket.
And even if the fibers came from the blanket and were left by the rifle in
the bag, it is only evidence that Oswald inserted the rifle into the bag.
BY YOUR EXPLANATION HE THEN TOOK IT BACK OUT when he discovered it was too
long. So the fiber evidence is simply evidence that Lee inserted the rifle
in the "bag", found it was too long, and took it back out. If you have
evidence that he then disassembled the rifle and put it back in a second
time, please post it.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Why wouldn't they be there? He carried it in.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Actually, that's debatable. Check the tape width and also the testimony of
the man at the tape dispensor.
But let's ignore that evidence and say that Lee made the paperbag on
Thursday, Nov 21, folded it up, hid it on his person, and took it to the
Paine's. It's still not evidence of how the rifle entered the TSBD. It's
evidence Lee made a bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
No. The FBI examined the bag and Cadigan testified there were no
impressions or indentures in it that could be associated with the rifle.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
The rifle was fired and used in the assassination.
So how did it get in the TSBD?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor..
Yes.
Post by Ed Cage
What does this tell you Clark?
That he's shooting at JFK.
So how did the rifle get into the TSBD if the bag didn't contain a rifle
as all the evidence indicates?
Post by Ed Cage
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
It means that Oswald and nobody else but Oswald was in that window with
that rifle shooting at JFK. But how did the rifle get into the TSBD? The
evidence that he brought it in via the paperbag is exactly the same as the
evidence that he folded it up, put it in his wallet, and carried it in in
his back pocket.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the rifle was brought
into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
No 1964 Oldsmobiles were found on the sixth floor either. So tell us how the
rifle got into the TSBD and your supporting evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
No. Like many LNers you ignore that there is no evidence to support your
"rifle in the paperbag" agenda. So far, it seems to have only happened in
your imagination because you haven't posted one shred of evidence to
support a theory so unsubstantiated that it even requires Oswald to be a
complete moron - a mental midget who can't figure out how to untape a bag
he, himself, taped, or how to pick up and carry a blanket he, himself, had
tied in twine.
Post by Ed Cage
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
I have my own but it does not include how the rifle was transported into
the TSBD. James Olmstead has discovered a print on the triggerguard that
is not Oswald's which, if true, could explain how the rifle was
transported.
And, just to be clear, I have a question for you. If the rifle was not
brought in via the paperbag, did Oswald act alone?
Post by Ed Cage
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
I didn't have to ignore or discredit any evidence you presented. You
didn't present any. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the rifle was
in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"
Well... if it's not in the paperbag then that would be evidence Oswald did
not bring the rifle into the TSBD, wouldn't it?
And, so far, that is the case you have presented.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
I agree he is the shooter.
Post by Ed Cage
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..
Oswald.
Post by Ed Cage
MR ;~D Nov141123
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Not a long wait was it?
Just a fact.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
Ed Cage
2003-11-16 01:28:38 UTC
Permalink
. CASE CLOSED (I think..)
=====================Ed Cage ON=========================
Post by Ed Cage
* CW: "Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
* CW: "..even if someone else's prints are on the trigger guard,
my vote is still for Oswald at the SN."
* Clark you also AGREED that it was Oswald's rifle on 6th floor.."
====================Ed Cage OFF==========================

===========Clark's Response ON====================
"You haven't misquoted me.
I stated all the above."<--Actual VERBATIM Clark response
===========Clark Response OFF=====================

Clark since we at least agree on the 3 issues above, I'd
like to suggest a truce.. Nothing good can come from
this. There are new researchers honestly seeking the truth
about JFK and I fear that childish arguments when both sides
appear to agrre on the 3 fundamental issues above can serve
no useful purpose..Fair enuff?

Ed Nov151304
PS: I will not challenge your contention that "Oswald's prints
on the rifle are meaningless" It speaks for itself.
PPS: I have given up asking you if you have any evidence the
rifle was never disassembled btw.. I will no longer waste key
strokes asking you that one - Your silence on that issue, also
speaks for itself..(You have no such evidence.)
Post by Ed Cage
Clark your tactic of DUCKING Qs and ignoring the
thread TOPIC is frustrating. I present EVIDENCE,
you counter w QUESTIONS..
If you have EVIDENCE (Not questions) that the
rifle was never dis-assembled, P*O*S*T it! And please
refrain from stating MY position(s).
HERE IS SOME OF MY EVIDENCE -- PLEASE POST YOURS
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that
Randall and Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "too
short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald..
2) There were FIBERS from the blanket on the bag.
3) The bag had Oswald's PRINTS on it.
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
5) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they
really had no reason to think was significant, can hardly
be expected to come up w accurate measurements.
Translation: YOUR 27" EST. MIGHT BE WRONG CLARK..
6) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
11-22-63.
7) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald
reportedly said "curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever
found Clark..
8) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag Clark! --
Not just one; Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell
completely flat. (Curtain rods were NEVER FOUND Clark.)
10) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD -
There is evidence that Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to
work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence? Well, let's just say the
evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that
Oswald DID take something long to work that morning..
Covered completely in a bag.
Clark: There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a
rifle to work 11-22-63 AM.
There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Please present E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E as I have done.. Not more
"Clark=QUESTIONS." Questions are not evidence Clark..
Ed Cage Nov150348
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
I'm still waiting on you to present your evidence.
I repeat.
What is your evidence that the rifle was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
A bag both testified was too short to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark. "0"
So you have eyewitness testimony of Oswald carrying in a paperbag in which
the rifle, disassembled or otherwise, will not fit. How does disproving
your theory help your case?
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
The rifle cannot be transported from the Paine's garage to the TSBD
without LHO's participation in its transportation. So what is your
evidence he brought it in via the bag? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Yes. He said that.
So what is your evidence the rifle is in the bag?
Post by Ed Cage
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Which was a lie.
But that doesn't explain how the rifle got into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
That's because it's now on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
What is your evidence for how it got there?
Post by Ed Cage
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Insufficient match for a positive ID. Also, fibers were found that didn't
match the blanket.
And even if the fibers came from the blanket and were left by the rifle in
the bag, it is only evidence that Oswald inserted the rifle into the bag.
BY YOUR EXPLANATION HE THEN TOOK IT BACK OUT when he discovered it was too
long. So the fiber evidence is simply evidence that Lee inserted the rifle
in the "bag", found it was too long, and took it back out. If you have
evidence that he then disassembled the rifle and put it back in a second
time, please post it.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Why wouldn't they be there? He carried it in.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Actually, that's debatable. Check the tape width and also the testimony of
the man at the tape dispensor.
But let's ignore that evidence and say that Lee made the paperbag on
Thursday, Nov 21, folded it up, hid it on his person, and took it to the
Paine's. It's still not evidence of how the rifle entered the TSBD. It's
evidence Lee made a bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
No. The FBI examined the bag and Cadigan testified there were no
impressions or indentures in it that could be associated with the rifle.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
The rifle was fired and used in the assassination.
So how did it get in the TSBD?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor..
Yes.
Post by Ed Cage
What does this tell you Clark?
That he's shooting at JFK.
So how did the rifle get into the TSBD if the bag didn't contain a rifle
as all the evidence indicates?
Post by Ed Cage
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
It means that Oswald and nobody else but Oswald was in that window with
that rifle shooting at JFK. But how did the rifle get into the TSBD? The
evidence that he brought it in via the paperbag is exactly the same as the
evidence that he folded it up, put it in his wallet, and carried it in in
his back pocket.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the rifle was brought
into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
No 1964 Oldsmobiles were found on the sixth floor either. So tell us how the
rifle got into the TSBD and your supporting evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
No. Like many LNers you ignore that there is no evidence to support your
"rifle in the paperbag" agenda. So far, it seems to have only happened in
your imagination because you haven't posted one shred of evidence to
support a theory so unsubstantiated that it even requires Oswald to be a
complete moron - a mental midget who can't figure out how to untape a bag
he, himself, taped, or how to pick up and carry a blanket he, himself, had
tied in twine.
Post by Ed Cage
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
I have my own but it does not include how the rifle was transported into
the TSBD. James Olmstead has discovered a print on the triggerguard that
is not Oswald's which, if true, could explain how the rifle was
transported.
And, just to be clear, I have a question for you. If the rifle was not
brought in via the paperbag, did Oswald act alone?
Post by Ed Cage
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
I didn't have to ignore or discredit any evidence you presented. You
didn't present any. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the rifle was
in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"
Well... if it's not in the paperbag then that would be evidence Oswald did
not bring the rifle into the TSBD, wouldn't it?
And, so far, that is the case you have presented.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
I agree he is the shooter.
Post by Ed Cage
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..
Oswald.
Post by Ed Cage
MR ;~D Nov141123
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Not a long wait was it?
Just a fact.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
. CASE CLOSED (I think..)
=====================Ed Cage ON=========================
Post by Ed Cage
* CW: "Yes. I'll even go one further and say it is Oswald and
nobody else but Oswald."
* CW: "..even if someone else's prints are on the trigger guard,
my vote is still for Oswald at the SN."
* Clark you also AGREED that it was Oswald's rifle on 6th floor.."
====================Ed Cage OFF==========================
===========Clark's Response ON====================
"You haven't misquoted me.
I stated all the above."<--Actual VERBATIM Clark response
===========Clark Response OFF=====================
Clark since we at least agree on the 3 issues above, I'd
like to suggest a truce.. Nothing good can come from
this. There are new researchers honestly seeking the truth
about JFK and I fear that childish arguments when both sides
appear to agrre on the 3 fundamental issues above can serve
no useful purpose..Fair enuff?
Not even close. There's still the issue of how the M-C got into the TSBD.
Even if Oswald was the only shooter, if he didn't bring the M-C in on
11/22, then he had help.
Post by Ed Cage
Ed Nov151304
PS: I will not challenge your contention that "Oswald's prints
on the rifle are meaningless" It speaks for itself.
Of course they're meaningless, eD. It was Oswald's rifle. His prints were
on his rifle. So what? My prints are all over everything of mine,
including my rifle. He could have placed them there at ANY previous time -
not only on 11/22.
Post by Ed Cage
PPS: I have given up asking you if you have any evidence the
rifle was never disassembled btw..
Listen up, Ed. You have exactly ZERO witnesses to the rifle EVER being
DISassembled. EVERY single account of it has it assembled. It was shipped
assembled. It was received assembled. Marina NEVER saw it other than
assembled. Mike Paine only saw it assembled. ALL photos of it prior to the
assassination show it assembled.

Listen again, eD. You have NO evidence that the rifle was EVER
disassembled, from the moment Oswald first received it until after it was
recovered by the police in the TSBD.

Therefore, there is NO burden on ANYONE to prove it wasn't disassembled.
It wasn't disassembled ever single time we have ANY info about it. That
point is ALREADY proven, eD.

It's up to you and your fellow LNs to show it WAS disassembled on the
morning of 11/22/63.

Absent you being able to actually show it was disassembled, you're only
SPECULATING it was disassembled.

Where's your evidence it was disassebled, eD? Don't dodge the issue. Don't
snip it out. Don't start a new thread.

ANSWER the question - where's your evidence the M-C was disassembled on
Post by Ed Cage
I will no longer waste key
strokes asking you that one - Your silence on that issue, also
speaks for itself..(You have no such evidence.)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Prove it was DISassembled on the
morning of 11/22/63, eD.

If you can't bring yourself to answer this one question - then you are
really not worth wasting time on.

Don't duck me on this one, eD. List your evidence the M-C was disassembled
right here:







I'm waiting, eD.
--
John Hill (joisa)
clark wilkins
2003-11-16 17:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
Clark your tactic of DUCKING Qs and ignoring the
thread TOPIC is frustrating. I present EVIDENCE,
You have presented absolutely no evidence on how the rifle entered the TSBD.
If you have evidence the rifle entered the TSBD via the paperbag, why do you
keep refusing to post it?
Post by Ed Cage
you counter w QUESTIONS..
Yes. I keep asking you to post your evidence Lee brought the rifle into the
TSBD and I get no answer.
Why is that?
Post by Ed Cage
If you have EVIDENCE (Not questions) that the
rifle was never dis-assembled, P*O*S*T it!
There is no indication Lee had the means to disassemble and reassemble the
rifle, or that it was disassembled AT ALL on 11/22/63, or that it was inside
the bag on 11/22/63. If you have evidence the rifle was disassembled on
11/22/63 or in the bag on 11/22/63, please post it. Otherwise, you're
ducking the issue by falsely claiming you have presented evidence, when you
haven't, and then demanding that I prove the rifle wasn't disassembled.
While it is not MY job to disprove your arguments, but YOUR job to PROVE
them, the lack of fingerprints on the disassembled parts of the rifle
combined with the eyewitness testimony is EVIDENCE the rifle is NOT in the
bag.
You have produced nothing to the contrary.
Post by Ed Cage
And please
refrain from stating MY position(s).
I can only state your position(s) since you have refused to post any
evidence backing that position(s) up.
Post by Ed Cage
HERE IS SOME OF MY EVIDENCE -- PLEASE POST YOURS
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that
Randall and Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "too
short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald..
Which they both agree is too SHORT to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Now how is that not ACCURATE?

And how can you claim eyewitness testimony that DISPROVES your case as
SUPPORTING it?
Post by Ed Cage
2) There were FIBERS from the blanket on the bag.
Really?
Who said the FIBERS in the bag matched those of the blanket? Please quote
this testimony.
Post by Ed Cage
3) The bag had Oswald's PRINTS on it.
So what?
POST your evidence the rifle is in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
The bag folded would be expected to be too short. All witnesses descriptions
match that of a folded bag and the bag has fold marks exactly as described
by the witnesses.
Post by Ed Cage
5) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they
really had no reason to think was significant, can hardly
be expected to come up w accurate measurements.
Translation: YOUR 27" EST. MIGHT BE WRONG CLARK..
And why should your 38" EST. be right?
Post by Ed Cage
6) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
Yep. A bag too short to contain the rifle, correct?
Post by Ed Cage
11-22-63.
7) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald
reportedly said "curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever
found Clark..
How is this evidence the bag contained a rifle? No 1964 Oldsmobiles were
ever found either. So what?
Post by Ed Cage
8) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag Clark! --
Both who testified the bag could not contain a rifle.
So why do you post evidence that disproves your case as being evidence that
supports your case?
Post by Ed Cage
Not just one;
That's right.
TWO WITNESSES DISPROVED YOUR CASE.
Post by Ed Cage
Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell
completely flat. (Curtain rods were NEVER FOUND Clark.)
Nor any 1964 Oldsmobiles.
So what?
Post by Ed Cage
10) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD -
Because it was made at the TSBD (At least in theory).
Post by Ed Cage
There is evidence that Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to
work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence?
Too short to contain a rifle.
Coincidence?
Post by Ed Cage
Well, let's just say the
evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that
Oswald DID take something long to work that morning.
How long?
I calculate 19" maximum by Frazier's testimony.
Is the disassembled rifle 19" long?
Post by Ed Cage
Covered completely in a bag.
Well then that disproves your case since a 19" long paperbag cannot
completely cover the rifle.

So now that you've proven that Oswald didn't bring the rifle in by the
paperbag, how do you think it got in?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark: There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a
rifle to work 11-22-63 AM.
Then why don't you post it?
I think you should stop posting evidence the rifle is not in the bag and
actually post evidence it is.
It will help your case - BELIEVE ME.
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Just all the evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
Please present E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E as I have done..
Where have YOU posted your E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E ?
I can't find it.
Post by Ed Cage
Not more
"Clark=QUESTIONS." Questions are not evidence Clark..
My question is simple.
What is the E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E you claim to have but refuse to post? And why
won't you share it?
Post by Ed Cage
Ed Cage Nov150348
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
I'm still waiting on you to present your evidence.
I repeat.
What is your evidence that the rifle was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
A bag both testified was too short to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark. "0"
So you have eyewitness testimony of Oswald carrying in a paperbag in which
the rifle, disassembled or otherwise, will not fit. How does disproving
your theory help your case?
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
The rifle cannot be transported from the Paine's garage to the TSBD
without LHO's participation in its transportation. So what is your
evidence he brought it in via the bag? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Yes. He said that.
So what is your evidence the rifle is in the bag?
Post by Ed Cage
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Which was a lie.
But that doesn't explain how the rifle got into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
That's because it's now on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
What is your evidence for how it got there?
Post by Ed Cage
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Insufficient match for a positive ID. Also, fibers were found that didn't
match the blanket.
And even if the fibers came from the blanket and were left by the rifle in
the bag, it is only evidence that Oswald inserted the rifle into the bag.
BY YOUR EXPLANATION HE THEN TOOK IT BACK OUT when he discovered it was too
long. So the fiber evidence is simply evidence that Lee inserted the rifle
in the "bag", found it was too long, and took it back out. If you have
evidence that he then disassembled the rifle and put it back in a second
time, please post it.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Why wouldn't they be there? He carried it in.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Actually, that's debatable. Check the tape width and also the testimony of
the man at the tape dispensor.
But let's ignore that evidence and say that Lee made the paperbag on
Thursday, Nov 21, folded it up, hid it on his person, and took it to the
Paine's. It's still not evidence of how the rifle entered the TSBD. It's
evidence Lee made a bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
No. The FBI examined the bag and Cadigan testified there were no
impressions or indentures in it that could be associated with the rifle.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
The rifle was fired and used in the assassination.
So how did it get in the TSBD?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor..
Yes.
Post by Ed Cage
What does this tell you Clark?
That he's shooting at JFK.
So how did the rifle get into the TSBD if the bag didn't contain a rifle
as all the evidence indicates?
Post by Ed Cage
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
It means that Oswald and nobody else but Oswald was in that window with
that rifle shooting at JFK. But how did the rifle get into the TSBD? The
evidence that he brought it in via the paperbag is exactly the same as the
evidence that he folded it up, put it in his wallet, and carried it in in
his back pocket.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the rifle was brought
into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
No 1964 Oldsmobiles were found on the sixth floor either. So tell us how the
rifle got into the TSBD and your supporting evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
No. Like many LNers you ignore that there is no evidence to support your
"rifle in the paperbag" agenda. So far, it seems to have only happened in
your imagination because you haven't posted one shred of evidence to
support a theory so unsubstantiated that it even requires Oswald to be a
complete moron - a mental midget who can't figure out how to untape a bag
he, himself, taped, or how to pick up and carry a blanket he, himself, had
tied in twine.
Post by Ed Cage
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
I have my own but it does not include how the rifle was transported into
the TSBD. James Olmstead has discovered a print on the triggerguard that
is not Oswald's which, if true, could explain how the rifle was
transported.
And, just to be clear, I have a question for you. If the rifle was not
brought in via the paperbag, did Oswald act alone?
Post by Ed Cage
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
I didn't have to ignore or discredit any evidence you presented. You
didn't present any. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the rifle was
in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"
Well... if it's not in the paperbag then that would be evidence Oswald did
not bring the rifle into the TSBD, wouldn't it?
And, so far, that is the case you have presented.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
I agree he is the shooter.
Post by Ed Cage
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..
Oswald.
Post by Ed Cage
MR ;~D Nov141123
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Not a long wait was it?
Just a fact.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
Ed Cage
2003-11-17 00:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Clark,
If you have NO evidence that Oswald didn't
bring the rifle to TSBD on 11-22-63, JUST
SAY SO!!
I will not hold it against you.. There is
no such photo or film which is the sort of
evidence you yearn for.. But there can be
CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.. I will accept circumstantial
evidence! (I have told you this repeatedly..) Do you
even have any CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence Oswald didn't
bring the rifle to the TSBD? I didn't think
so..

(Asking me the S*A*M*E Q in reverse
is NOT evidence btw Clark.)
QUESTIONS are just not a substitute for EVIDENCE.

Ed Cage Nov161517
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Clark your tactic of DUCKING Qs and ignoring the
thread TOPIC is frustrating. I present EVIDENCE,
You have presented absolutely no evidence on how the rifle entered the TSBD.
If you have evidence the rifle entered the TSBD via the paperbag, why do you
keep refusing to post it?
Post by Ed Cage
you counter w QUESTIONS..
Yes. I keep asking you to post your evidence Lee brought the rifle into the
TSBD and I get no answer.
Why is that?
Post by Ed Cage
If you have EVIDENCE (Not questions) that the
rifle was never dis-assembled, P*O*S*T it!
There is no indication Lee had the means to disassemble and reassemble the
rifle, or that it was disassembled AT ALL on 11/22/63, or that it was inside
the bag on 11/22/63. If you have evidence the rifle was disassembled on
11/22/63 or in the bag on 11/22/63, please post it. Otherwise, you're
ducking the issue by falsely claiming you have presented evidence, when you
haven't, and then demanding that I prove the rifle wasn't disassembled.
While it is not MY job to disprove your arguments, but YOUR job to PROVE
them, the lack of fingerprints on the disassembled parts of the rifle
combined with the eyewitness testimony is EVIDENCE the rifle is NOT in the
bag.
You have produced nothing to the contrary.
Post by Ed Cage
And please
refrain from stating MY position(s).
I can only state your position(s) since you have refused to post any
evidence backing that position(s) up.
Post by Ed Cage
HERE IS SOME OF MY EVIDENCE -- PLEASE POST YOURS
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that
Randall and Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "too
short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald..
Which they both agree is too SHORT to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Now how is that not ACCURATE?
And how can you claim eyewitness testimony that DISPROVES your case as
SUPPORTING it?
Post by Ed Cage
2) There were FIBERS from the blanket on the bag.
Really?
Who said the FIBERS in the bag matched those of the blanket? Please quote
this testimony.
Post by Ed Cage
3) The bag had Oswald's PRINTS on it.
So what?
POST your evidence the rifle is in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
The bag folded would be expected to be too short. All witnesses descriptions
match that of a folded bag and the bag has fold marks exactly as described
by the witnesses.
Post by Ed Cage
5) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they
really had no reason to think was significant, can hardly
be expected to come up w accurate measurements.
Translation: YOUR 27" EST. MIGHT BE WRONG CLARK..
And why should your 38" EST. be right?
Post by Ed Cage
6) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
Yep. A bag too short to contain the rifle, correct?
Post by Ed Cage
11-22-63.
7) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald
reportedly said "curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever
found Clark..
How is this evidence the bag contained a rifle? No 1964 Oldsmobiles were
ever found either. So what?
Post by Ed Cage
8) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag Clark! --
Both who testified the bag could not contain a rifle.
So why do you post evidence that disproves your case as being evidence that
supports your case?
Post by Ed Cage
Not just one;
That's right.
TWO WITNESSES DISPROVED YOUR CASE.
Post by Ed Cage
Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell
completely flat. (Curtain rods were NEVER FOUND Clark.)
Nor any 1964 Oldsmobiles.
So what?
Post by Ed Cage
10) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD -
Because it was made at the TSBD (At least in theory).
Post by Ed Cage
There is evidence that Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to
work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence?
Too short to contain a rifle.
Coincidence?
Post by Ed Cage
Well, let's just say the
evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that
Oswald DID take something long to work that morning.
How long?
I calculate 19" maximum by Frazier's testimony.
Is the disassembled rifle 19" long?
Post by Ed Cage
Covered completely in a bag.
Well then that disproves your case since a 19" long paperbag cannot
completely cover the rifle.
So now that you've proven that Oswald didn't bring the rifle in by the
paperbag, how do you think it got in?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark: There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a
rifle to work 11-22-63 AM.
Then why don't you post it?
I think you should stop posting evidence the rifle is not in the bag and
actually post evidence it is.
It will help your case - BELIEVE ME.
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Just all the evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
Please present E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E as I have done..
Where have YOU posted your E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E ?
I can't find it.
Post by Ed Cage
Not more
"Clark=QUESTIONS." Questions are not evidence Clark..
My question is simple.
What is the E*V*I*D*E*N*C*E you claim to have but refuse to post? And why
won't you share it?
Post by Ed Cage
Ed Cage Nov150348
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
You have the CT affliction of addressing virtually all
issues w a barrage of Qs..AND self-serving assumptions..
Notice I present EVIDENCE; You present QUESTIONS Clark..
Big DIFFERENCE son..
I'm still waiting on you to present your evidence.
I repeat.
What is your evidence that the rifle was disassembled?
Post by Ed Cage
Frazier and Randle both say they saw Oswald w long bwn paper bag.
A bag both testified was too short to contain a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence of Oswald being seen going in TSBD wo the
long bwn bag. Zero Clark. "0"
So you have eyewitness testimony of Oswald carrying in a paperbag in
which
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
the rifle, disassembled or otherwise, will not fit. How does disproving
your theory help your case?
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO explanation (Other than Oswald) as to how/why the
rifle was missing.. None.. Nada. ZippO.
The rifle cannot be transported from the Paine's garage to the TSBD
without LHO's participation in its transportation. So what is your
evidence he brought it in via the bag? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he had NO GUN & brought no long bag to work..
Yes. He said that.
So what is your evidence the rifle is in the bag?
Post by Ed Cage
Only "my lunch" claimed LHO..
Which was a lie.
But that doesn't explain how the rifle got into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald's rifle MISSING from blanket where Marina said it was..
That's because it's now on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
What is your evidence for how it got there?
Post by Ed Cage
Blanket FIBERS on bag..
Insufficient match for a positive ID. Also, fibers were found that
didn't
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
match the blanket.
And even if the fibers came from the blanket and were left by the rifle
in
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
the bag, it is only evidence that Oswald inserted the rifle into the
bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
BY YOUR EXPLANATION HE THEN TOOK IT BACK OUT when he discovered it was
too
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
long. So the fiber evidence is simply evidence that Lee inserted the
rifle
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
in the "bag", found it was too long, and took it back out. If you have
evidence that he then disassembled the rifle and put it back in a second
time, please post it.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald PRINTS on the bag!
Why wouldn't they be there? He carried it in.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag paper & cut marks SAME as TSBD!!
Actually, that's debatable. Check the tape width and also the testimony
of
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
the man at the tape dispensor.
But let's ignore that evidence and say that Lee made the paperbag on
Thursday, Nov 21, folded it up, hid it on his person, and took it to the
Paine's. It's still not evidence of how the rifle entered the TSBD. It's
evidence Lee made a bag.
Post by Ed Cage
Bag has impression/indenture of a rifle..
No. The FBI examined the bag and Cadigan testified there were no
impressions or indentures in it that could be associated with the rifle.
Post by Ed Cage
There is NO evidence Oswald's rifle was PLANTED Clark! None. 0
The rifle was fired and used in the assassination.
So how did it get in the TSBD?
Post by Ed Cage
Clark you have conceded Oswald was in the 6th Floor window and it
was HIS rifle found on the 6TH floor..
Yes.
Post by Ed Cage
What does this tell you Clark?
That he's shooting at JFK.
So how did the rifle get into the TSBD if the bag didn't contain a rifle
as all the evidence indicates?
Post by Ed Cage
Here's a QUOTE from YOU Clark: "I'll even go one further and say it
is Oswald and nobody else but Oswald."<==Explain this Clark.
It means that Oswald and nobody else but Oswald was in that window with
that rifle shooting at JFK. But how did the rifle get into the TSBD? The
evidence that he brought it in via the paperbag is exactly the same as
the
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
evidence that he folded it up, put it in his wallet, and carried it in
in
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
his back pocket.
Post by Ed Cage
Oswald tells DPD he never told Frazier he had "curtain rods"
Still w me Clark?
Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the rifle was
brought
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
into the TSBD.
Post by Ed Cage
NO curtain rods ever found!!!
No 1964 Oldsmobiles were found on the sixth floor either. So tell us how
the
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
rifle got into the TSBD and your supporting evidence.
Post by Ed Cage
I. IGNOR evidence that does not fit your CT "muddy-the-water" agenda.
No. Like many LNers you ignore that there is no evidence to support your
"rifle in the paperbag" agenda. So far, it seems to have only happened
in
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
your imagination because you haven't posted one shred of evidence to
support a theory so unsubstantiated that it even requires Oswald to be a
complete moron - a mental midget who can't figure out how to untape a
bag
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
he, himself, taped, or how to pick up and carry a blanket he, himself,
had
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
tied in twine.
Post by Ed Cage
II. You have NO CT of your OWN (Correct me and POST it if you do have
a CT of your very OWN)
I have my own but it does not include how the rifle was transported into
the TSBD. James Olmstead has discovered a print on the triggerguard that
is not Oswald's which, if true, could explain how the rifle was
transported.
And, just to be clear, I have a question for you. If the rifle was not
brought in via the paperbag, did Oswald act alone?
Post by Ed Cage
III. You jump to conclusions that fir the CT angle, but IGNOR and
attempt to discredit evidence like I just presented.
I didn't have to ignore or discredit any evidence you presented. You
didn't present any. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the rifle
was
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
in the bag.
Post by Ed Cage
IV. Clark you have NO convincing evidence that Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to TSBD! None. nada. Zip. Zero. "0"
Well... if it's not in the paperbag then that would be evidence Oswald
did
Post by Ed Cage
Post by clark wilkins
not bring the rifle into the TSBD, wouldn't it?
And, so far, that is the case you have presented.
Post by Ed Cage
Clark I would like it very much if you could explain how it was Oswald
on 6th floor, HIS rifle was used, and yet you somehow think he was NOT
the shooter!! Correct me if I mis-stated your position.
I agree he is the shooter.
Post by Ed Cage
CLARK, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR POSITION ON WHO KILLED TIPPIT BTW..
Oswald.
Post by Ed Cage
MR ;~D Nov141123
PS: We are all anxiously awaiting to see if you can do what I just
Post evidence rather than Qs.. We're waiting Clark..
Not a long wait was it?
Just a fact.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own
evidence."
S.O
2003-11-15 21:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>

Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to convict.

SO
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
List it right here:






--
John Hill (joisa)
S.O
2003-11-16 16:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
John Hill
2003-11-17 19:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
You're kidding right?
That it would fit is NOT evidence that it was actually ever put in there.
You're argument is circular. You're claiming as evidence the argument - "It
fit because it was disassembled and it was disassembled because it fit."
That's proof of NOTHING except faulty logic.
If I were to accept that argument then I could say that any of thousands of
things were in the package because they'd fit.

You don't need a better argument than this. You need an argument at all.
--
John Hill (joisa)
S.O
2003-11-18 02:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by S.O
Post by John Hill
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
You're kidding right?
That it would fit is NOT evidence that it was actually ever put in there.
You're argument is circular. You're claiming as evidence the argument - "It
fit because it was disassembled and it was disassembled because it fit."
That's proof of NOTHING except faulty logic.
If I were to accept that argument then I could say that any of thousands of
things were in the package because they'd fit.
You don't need a better argument than this. You need an argument at all.
--
John Hill (joisa)
I'm sorry, but my ISP has been double and sometimes triple posting my
comments.

Hopefully that won't happen this time. I also don't have the time or
inclination to explain the difference between "circumstantial" and
"direct" evidence. I suspect you know the difference, anyway. We don't
have direct evidence--that is, we don't have a picture or video of LHO
putting the rifle in the bag. But to argue that the evidence that is there
is "faulty logic" shows a complete disregard of what "circumstantial"
evidence actually is. Therefore, any further discussion is pointless.

SO
John Hill
2003-11-18 19:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by John Hill
Post by S.O
Post by John Hill
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
You're kidding right?
That it would fit is NOT evidence that it was actually ever put in there.
You're argument is circular. You're claiming as evidence the argument - "It
fit because it was disassembled and it was disassembled because it fit."
That's proof of NOTHING except faulty logic.
If I were to accept that argument then I could say that any of thousands of
things were in the package because they'd fit.
You don't need a better argument than this. You need an argument at all.
--
John Hill (joisa)
I'm sorry, but my ISP has been double and sometimes triple posting my
comments.
Hopefully that won't happen this time. I also don't have the time or
inclination to explain the difference between "circumstantial" and
"direct" evidence. I suspect you know the difference, anyway. We don't
have direct evidence--that is, we don't have a picture or video of LHO
putting the rifle in the bag. But to argue that the evidence that is there
is "faulty logic" shows a complete disregard of what "circumstantial"
evidence actually is. Therefore, any further discussion is pointless.
No offense taken.

You're missing the point. That the M-C might have fit in the envelope if the
M-C was disassembled is not circumstantial evidence that the M-C WAS
disassembled. It's evidence that it MIGHT have been disassembled - but not
that it WAS disassembled.
There is NO evidence that the M-C was EVER disassembled from the time Oswald
received it until the police found it.
Please cite for me ANYTHING in evidence that positively shows the M-C to
have ever been disassembled. There is nothing. Therefore, for anyone to
assume it was disassembled is but CONVENIENT SPECULATION.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Post by S.O
SO
S.O
2003-11-16 17:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
John Hill
2003-11-17 19:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
You already said that.
--
John Hill (joisa)
S.O
2003-11-16 22:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
John Hill
2003-11-17 19:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT.
Wasn't
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
There is "circumstantial" evidence the M-C was disassembled??? What
circumstantial evidence is that???
1) The rifle fits in the bag when it's disassembled.
You already said that again.
--
John Hill (joisa)
clark wilkins
2003-11-16 17:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ed Cage
Your entire case appears to rest on the assumption
that the WC and the HSCA were both W*R*O*N*G about the rifle
being in the bag.. And that the 27" estimate was CORRECT.
Actually I was responding to your entire case that the rifle was
transported in the paperbag and the the 27" estimate was INCORRECT. Wasn't
that the case you've been trying so unsuccessfully to make?
Post by Ed Cage
There is no compelling, (Clear & convincing) evidence that
the rifle would not "fit" in the bag Clark... None. Zippo.
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to convict.
SO
Then you should have circumstantial evidence the rifle was disassembled -
either a screwdriver to reassemble it or fingerprints on the disassembled
parts of the rifle or whatever else you can come up with.
So list your circumstantial evidence. Ed Cage has refused to do so. You seem
to be offering. Go for it.

::Clark::
S.O
2003-11-16 22:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
Then you should have circumstantial evidence the rifle was disassembled -
either a screwdriver to reassemble it or fingerprints on the disassembled
parts of the rifle or whatever else you can come up with.
So list your circumstantial evidence. Ed Cage has refused to do so. You seem
to be offering. Go for it.
1) The disassembled rifle fits in the bag.
2) The rifle could be put together with a dime, if need be.
John Hill
2003-11-19 03:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
Then you should have circumstantial evidence the rifle was
disassembled -
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
either a screwdriver to reassemble it or fingerprints on the
disassembled
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
parts of the rifle or whatever else you can come up with.
So list your circumstantial evidence. Ed Cage has refused to do so. You
seem
Post by S.O
to be offering. Go for it.
1) The disassembled rifle fits in the bag.
You honestly consider this evidece that the rifle WAS disassembled??? Lots
of things would fit in the package. Is that evidence they were in there?
Post by S.O
2) The rifle could be put together with a dime, if need be.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Way too absurd. How does its being able to
assemble with a dime indicate it was disassembled? I can reassemble many
things with a dime. Does that prove they were in the package?

Thanks for the laugh.
--
John Hill (joisa)
S.O
2003-11-17 00:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
Then you should have circumstantial evidence the rifle was disassembled -
either a screwdriver to reassemble it or fingerprints on the disassembled
parts of the rifle or whatever else you can come up with.
So list your circumstantial evidence. Ed Cage has refused to do so. You seem
to be offering. Go for it.
1) The disassembled rifle fits in the bag.
2) The rifle could be put together with a dime, if need be.
John Hill
2003-11-19 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
Post by clark wilkins
The rifle is 40" long.
The bag is 38" long.
The assembled rifle does not fit.
What is your evidence that it was disassembled?
<<rest snipped>>
Oh, please. The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is sufficient to
convict.
Then you should have circumstantial evidence the rifle was
disassembled -
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
either a screwdriver to reassemble it or fingerprints on the
disassembled
Post by S.O
Post by S.O
parts of the rifle or whatever else you can come up with.
So list your circumstantial evidence. Ed Cage has refused to do so. You
seem
Post by S.O
to be offering. Go for it.
1) The disassembled rifle fits in the bag.
2) The rifle could be put together with a dime, if need be.
This terrible need you have to repeat yourself isn't working. It doesn't
make anyone believe you to any greater degree.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Ed Cage
2003-11-14 23:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Wrong again Clark.. As usual you have NO
compelling (Clear and convincing) evidence demonstrating
the rifle "wouldn't fit!"
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.. "0"

I'm afraid your entire JFK theory (Unknown by anyone at
this time), comes unraveled unless the 27" estimate was
.... CORRECT. Impressive.

Ed Nov141429
BTW, WHAT is Y=O=U=R theory? Don't have one beyond LNs
are wrong, huh? .. That's what I thought..
PS: We covered 5 of my 30 pts of evidence, I'll give you
another crack @ it if you promise not to skEEdadle when
you are asked for evidence.. Fair enuff?
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Ecagetx
POST it Clark..
I did not see , never have seen, any such compelling evidence or arguments from
you.. Post em <SNIP>
I hope this latest summary of what you say you showed all points had "FAILED"
is a better performance than your last quick exit..
Ed Nov130740
No problem - seeing as how it was posted just three days ago and which
required you to start this whole new thread in order to avoid it.
Post by Ecagetx
The evidence that Oswald did not bring rifle to TSBD is that Randall and
Frazier's estimates of the bag length were "far too short" is not accurate..
1) They both saw a LONG brwn bag carried by Oswald John Hill..
And both identified that it was too short to carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
2) There were fibers from the blanket on the bag.
They couldn't positively ID the fibers were from the blanket. However,
let's assume the fibers in the bag came from the blanket. That would be
evidence that Oswald took the rifle out of the blanket and inserted into
the bag, leaving the fibers behind. But he would have then found it didn't
fit, correct? So he then would have had to take it back out of the bag,
correct? And the bag now has the blanket fiber inside it, correct?
Now how is this proof or even evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the
TSBD? It seems to be evidence that Oswald found the rifle wouldn't fit in
the bag. I believe the blanket came from East Germany, which means, by
your logic, that the bag could have contained a German Panzer tank since,
like the rifle, it won't fit in the bag either. Yet the tank could have a
similar blanket fiber on it and transferred it to the bag when Oswald
tried to fit German Panzer tank (Probably a King Tiger) into the paperbag.
Have I stated your logic correctly? If not, how is the fiber evidence Lee
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
3) The bag had Oswald's prints on it.
Yes. That would be from his carrying it into the TSBD, folded too short to
carry a rifle.
Post by Ecagetx
4) The bag unfolded would be expected to be too long.
Too long for what? Maybe you mean the 8" side of the bag? No. You can't
mean that. The disassembled rifle won't fit in the 8" direction. So you
must mean the MAXIMUM 5" width of the bag with the barrell turned sideways
to rotate the scope to the side. But, no. You can't mean that because then
the trigger would punch a hole through the side of the bag. So what do you
mean?
Post by Ecagetx
5) The fold marks in the middle are likely how Oswald got it out of the
TSBD and took it home wo arousing suspicion. He folded it John before
putting the rifle in it.
Yes. But there appears to be seven folds in the bag from when he did this,
not three. Careuleo counted them up and posted a link to a picture of the
folds.
This is evidence the bag was folded on Thursday in half (19" long), then
in half again (9.5" long) and then once more (4.75"). He then folded it
once more lengthwise, reducing the entire package down to 4.75" X 4".
Interestingly enough, my pants back pockets are 6" X 6". Coincidence?
But on Friday, the bag now has three folds - the top fold when he placed
it in Frazier's car and the middle fold when he carried it into the TSBD.
Now how is the evidence that the bag won't hold the rifle as folded
evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
6) Witnesses to the length of a brwn paper bag that they really had no
reason to think was significant, can hardly be expected to come up w
accurate measurements.
Then how come they came up with the same measurement? They were both
exactly wrong in the same way?
7) Oswald DID take a long brwn bag to work
Post by Ecagetx
11-22-63.
Yes. And it did not contain his lunch.
So we can rule out that it contained his lunch.
And it seems we can rule out it contained a rifle.
So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
8) Frazier said he asked him what was in it.. Oswald reportedly said
"curtain rods" No curtain rods were ever found.
Correct. Oswald lied about what was in the bag. How is this evidence he
brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
9) That's TWO (2) witnesses to the brwn paper bag John Hill -- Not just
one; Plus a "curtain rod" explanation that fell completely flat.
The two witnesses both identified the bag could not contain a rifle. And
now we know it didn't contain curtain rods either. So what's in it?
Post by Ecagetx
10) Your interpretation of "far too short" does not square w the opinions
of investigators John Hill -- Additionally it's a subjective opinion as
well..
The folds on the bag are not subjective. They exist exactly where they
would be expected to be found as the two witnesses described the bag -
which cannot contain a rifle by their testimony.
Post by Ecagetx
11) Bag paper same as brwn paper in TSBD - That is why it was folded when
he likely heisted the paper from the TSBD imo..
Which is denied by the inidividual in charge of the paper and tape.
But how is this evidence that Lee brought the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
12) TWO witnesses to the LONG BROWN paper wrapping bag John.. TWO
Both who are against you.
You are citing two witnesses who prove you wrong.
I don't think that helps your case.
You're supposed to cite evidence that supports your case, not disproves
it. Maybe John can help you. He has a link on his site that contains
"massive" evidence the rifle was in the bag. Go grab it and come back!
Post by Ecagetx
13) Plus Oswald's "curtain rod" story to Frazier went kaput.. How do you
explain the missing "curtain rods" John Hill? Was Frazier trying to frame
Oswald by lying?
There were no curtain rods in the bag. Nor did it contain his lunch.
Oswald lied on both counts. Now where is your evidence that Lee brought
the rifle into the TSBD?
Post by Ecagetx
I beg to disagree w you that there is any evidence Oswald did NOT bring
the rifle to the TSBD.. To the contrary, there is evidence that he DID
take a long brwn bag to work 11-22-63 AM. Coincidence? Well, let's just
say the evidence, such as it exists points to the conclusion that Oswald
DID take something long to work that morning..
He took something in the bag. How do you know that what was inside it was
long?
Post by Ecagetx
Covered completely in a
bag.
That could make it short, couldn't it?
Post by Ecagetx
I fail to see any evidence that "Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work"
Then HOW did he do it?
Post by Ecagetx
which was my question in response to Deb's statement that listening to
arguments that he did were hardly worth "listening to" - I say the
evidence is clear he took something
Yes.
Post by Ecagetx
long to work
How do you know it was long?
Post by Ecagetx
and that the "curtain
rods" were never found. His rifle WAS found; So were the same fibers from
the Paine garage blanket.. ON THE BAG!
In the bag - which means, in your best case scenario, that Oswald inserted
and then removed the rifle from the bag when he found it wouldn't fit.
Post by Ecagetx
There IS compelling evidence he may have brought a rifle to work 11-22-63
AM. There is no compelling evidence he did NOT.
Except it won't fit.
Minor detail.
My vote, since you've expertly ruled out that it contained a rifle, is
that it contained a World War II German Panther tank (disassembled of
course). Obviously, this left the German blanket fiber and was the "hard
object" Cadigan noted had been in the bag. There seems to be no other
logical explanation if we use your reasoning.
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own evidence."
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
Wrong again Clark.. As usual you have NO
compelling (Clear and convincing) evidence demonstrating
the rifle "wouldn't fit!"
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.. "0"
I'm afraid your entire JFK theory (Unknown by anyone at
this time), comes unraveled unless the 27" estimate was
.... CORRECT. Impressive.
Ed Nov141429
BTW, WHAT is Y=O=U=R theory? Don't have one beyond LNs
are wrong, huh? .. That's what I thought..
PS: We covered 5 of my 30 pts of evidence, I'll give you
you are asked for evidence.. Fair enuff?
Strawman. Clark already responded to ***ALL*** 30, eD.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Ed Cage
2003-11-16 16:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Wrong again John Hill.. But another nice try.
Again you attempt to mask your lack of evidence.
If you have only QUESTIONS Mr. Hill, why not
try to do some research?
BTW, your ONE position on JFK that "Kennedy
was killed on 11-22-63" is actually correct. You
are making progress,.. When will you be able to
tell us more Professor Hill?

mR ;~D Nov160301
Post by John Hill
Post by Ed Cage
Wrong again Clark.. As usual you have NO
compelling (Clear and convincing) evidence demonstrating
the rifle "wouldn't fit!"
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.. "0"
I'm afraid your entire JFK theory (Unknown by anyone at
this time), comes unraveled unless the 27" estimate was
.... CORRECT. Impressive.
Ed Nov141429
BTW, WHAT is Y=O=U=R theory? Don't have one beyond LNs
are wrong, huh? .. That's what I thought..
PS: We covered 5 of my 30 pts of evidence, I'll give you
you are asked for evidence.. Fair enuff?
Strawman. Clark already responded to ***ALL*** 30, eD.
John Hill
2003-11-16 04:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cage
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag"
Perhaps they chose to drop it because the word "long" can be taken to mean
many different things by many different people.
Once again, eD - just how long is "long"?
Post by Ed Cage
and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
"Long" can be misleading too.
Post by Ed Cage
out who cooked up that misleading moniker
when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
And it's already been addressed in full.
Post by Ed Cage
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag
"BAG" is certainly misleading. It was NOT a "bag." It was an ENVELOPE.
Post by Ed Cage
a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
His ENVELOPE - of course his prints were on it. That doesn't prove there was
a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
Oswald's bag. Oswald's blanket. That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
c) Matching paper from TSBD
We all know that eD. That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
This one really does NOT work for you or McAdams, eD. Both of these
eyewitnesses described the package as TOO SHORT.
Post by Ed Cage
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
No one has ever claimed Oswald carried nothing. That doesn't prove there
was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
Marina never saw anywhere near an entire rifle in the garage. She saw a
small portion of wood that she took to be a part of a rifle stock.
Post by Ed Cage
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
Which does not actually prove it was in there a day before.
Post by Ed Cage
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
Nope. No one ever suggested that eD. Just another strawman argument.
Post by Ed Cage
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him the bag contained
"curtain rods" in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! WHY?
Because there may well have not been curtain rods in the package.
Post by Ed Cage
k) The rifle however, was found.
No shit.
Post by Ed Cage
l) The long
How long is "long," eD?
Post by Ed Cage
(not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Already addressed above.
Post by Ed Cage
Planted?
Probably not, but who knows for certain?
Post by Ed Cage
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America Vincent
Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a central piece
of his case.. Which he won btw..
A fake TV trial - yeah, I find that definetive... not.
Post by Ed Cage
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
Long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!!
And just who implied that?
Post by Ed Cage
Somewhere between
astonishing and comical is the best way I can address that
particular line of sophomoric "reasoning"... I'm not sure who
decided that it was a good idea to drop the terms "long brown
paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but they certainly had a
sense of humor.
You already said that above in this same post, eD.
Post by Ed Cage
I was trying to figure out who cooked up that
misleading moniker when I stumbled across an excellent rebuttal
by Dot John.. It is attached below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Well, you already said ALL this above.
Post by Ed Cage
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal*
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him there were "curtain rods"
in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! Why?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America,
Vincent Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a
CENTRAL piece of his presentation! .. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
"astonishing" and "comical" is the best way I can address that
particular line of "reasoning"...
Constantly amazed, mR ;~D
* The only "rebuttal" appears to be that the 2 witnesses got
the length 100% correct thereby proving the rifle "couldn't"
have been in the pesky bag!! (Let's go w "comical"..)
Strawman. NO ONE ever said they got the length EXACTLY right, eD. But THEY
saw the bag, eD - NOT you. THEY recreated the scenes with the FBI, eD -
NOT you. The FBI got 27" and 28.5", eD - NOT frazier and Randle.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Ed Cage
2003-11-19 15:20:39 UTC
Permalink
John Hill YOUR problem is that you CANNOT demonstrate,
much less "prove," (Your favorite word), the rifle was
never disassembled.
Please don't try to make that "MY" problem.

Ed ***@aol.com Nov190657
PS: Mr. Hill, I'm afraid I can no longer help you..
Since you INITIATED our unproductive dialog, may I
respectfully request you aim your "P=R=O=V=E I=T"
machine elsewhere?
Post by John Hill
Post by Ed Cage
I'm not sure who decided that it was a good idea to drop the
terms "long brown paper bag"
Perhaps they chose to drop it because the word "long" can be taken to mean
many different things by many different people.
Once again, eD - just how long is "long"?
Post by Ed Cage
and change it to "Pesky bag" but
they certainly had a sense of humor. I was trying to figure
"Long" can be misleading too.
Post by Ed Cage
out who cooked up that misleading moniker
when I stumbled
across an excellent rebuttal by Dot John.. It is attached
below.. (I only steal from the best..)
And it's already been addressed in full.
Post by Ed Cage
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
Long brown paper bag
"BAG" is certainly misleading. It was NOT a "bag." It was an ENVELOPE.
Post by Ed Cage
a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
His ENVELOPE - of course his prints were on it. That doesn't prove there was
a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
Oswald's bag. Oswald's blanket. That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
c) Matching paper from TSBD
We all know that eD. That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
That doesn't prove there was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
This one really does NOT work for you or McAdams, eD. Both of these
eyewitnesses described the package as TOO SHORT.
Post by Ed Cage
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
No one has ever claimed Oswald carried nothing. That doesn't prove there
was a rifle in it.
Post by Ed Cage
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
Marina never saw anywhere near an entire rifle in the garage. She saw a
small portion of wood that she took to be a part of a rifle stock.
Post by Ed Cage
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
Which does not actually prove it was in there a day before.
Post by Ed Cage
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
Nope. No one ever suggested that eD. Just another strawman argument.
Post by Ed Cage
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him the bag contained
"curtain rods" in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! WHY?
Because there may well have not been curtain rods in the package.
Post by Ed Cage
k) The rifle however, was found.
No shit.
Post by Ed Cage
l) The long
How long is "long," eD?
Post by Ed Cage
(not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Already addressed above.
Post by Ed Cage
Planted?
Probably not, but who knows for certain?
Post by Ed Cage
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America Vincent
Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a central piece
of his case.. Which he won btw..
A fake TV trial - yeah, I find that definetive... not.
Post by Ed Cage
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
Long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!!
And just who implied that?
Post by Ed Cage
Somewhere between
astonishing and comical is the best way I can address that
particular line of sophomoric "reasoning"... I'm not sure who
decided that it was a good idea to drop the terms "long brown
paper bag" and change it to "Pesky bag" but they certainly had a
sense of humor.
You already said that above in this same post, eD.
Post by Ed Cage
I was trying to figure out who cooked up that
misleading moniker when I stumbled across an excellent rebuttal
by Dot John.. It is attached below.. (I only steal from the best..)
Well, you already said ALL this above.
Post by Ed Cage
Any/every prosecutor worth their salt would make the
long brown paper bag a CENTERPIECE of their case! It is
a) PRINTS from Oswald on the bag
b) FIBERS from garage blanket.
c) Matching paper from TSBD
d) Matching jagged cut edge from TSBD cutter.
e) Not one, but TWO Sworn eyewitnesses! (one is a personal*
Friend & supporter of Oswald btw!.. (Buell Frazier)
f) No witnesses to swear Oswald had nothing when he came in
11-22-63 morning..
g) Marina says Oswald had rifle in garage in blanket..
h) When they pick up blanket, Oswald's rifle is GONE.
i) Oswald tells DPD he had no "long bwn paper bag" (Brilliant)
Now DPD is supposed to believe both Frazier & Randall gave
them bogus information..
j) Frazier testifies Oswald told him there were "curtain rods"
in the long bwn bag. NONE were ever found! Why?
k) The rifle however, was found.
l) The long (not-so-pesky to prosecutors) bwn bag was also
found! It had both blanket fibers and Oswald's prints to boot!
Planted?
No wonder arguably the best criminal Prosecutor in America,
Vincent Bugliosi, used the LONG BWN (Not-so-pesky) bag as a
CENTRAL piece of his presentation! .. Which he won btw..
I am absolutely astonished that anyone would imply that the
long bwn paper bag somehow "helps" Oswald!! Somewhere between
"astonishing" and "comical" is the best way I can address that
particular line of "reasoning"...
Constantly amazed, mR ;~D
* The only "rebuttal" appears to be that the 2 witnesses got
the length 100% correct thereby proving the rifle "couldn't"
have been in the pesky bag!! (Let's go w "comical"..)
Strawman. NO ONE ever said they got the length EXACTLY right, eD. But THEY
saw the bag, eD - NOT you. THEY recreated the scenes with the FBI, eD -
NOT you. The FBI got 27" and 28.5", eD - NOT frazier and Randle.
E***@aol.com
2003-11-20 05:25:55 UTC
Permalink
John Hill:
You respond to the
"EMPTY blanket Marina said contained Oswald's rifle"
with..

"Citation please?"

You will be a JFK Curator in no time Professor Hill.
Your trademark seems to be "NO EVIDENCE" John Hill..
John Hill QUOTE:====================================
"I am certain of only two things, Kennedy was killed
on 11-22-63 and the head shot
was at 313"<--Actual John Hill QUOTE
=====================================================

I don't think I can help you any further John.. May I
suggest you turn yer QUESTION Blow-Torch elsewhere?
You honestly lack the OBJECTIVITY to converse with John Hill..
Sorry, but it's true. (See above two quotes from you)
At least I have SOURCES John..

Ed Cage Nov160312
QUESTIONS are not EVIDENCE John Hill.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...