USPS workers screwing things up i.e..LHO receiving c2766

[Oscar Navarro]

I rely on evidence.

No. You over exaggerate the signicifance of pieces of evidence in order to make them fit the narrative.

If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented.

Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.

I rely on the evidence as presented by the WC and supported by the HSCA. If you believe they have "over exaggerated" the evidence then present evidence of that "over exaggeration" instead of just questioning the evidence and nitpicking ad nauseum.

Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.

It's in the OP.

 

[Walt Cakebread]

Frazier and Cunningham where firing to determine how fast they could fire three rounds and were not firing for accuracy. As has already been pointed out to you by Richard Smith, Frazier testified C2766 was "a very accurate weapon".

No they were not....But go ahead and continue lying to yourself, if that's what makes you comfortable.

[Oscar Navarro]

No they were not....But go ahead and continue lying to yourself, if that's what makes you comfortable.

Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

Thank you for posting the testimony...And I would hasten to point out that Frazier would have needed no target at all to determine the SPEED at which the rifle could be fired...BUT he sure as hell needed a target on which to record the impact of the bullets to determine ACCURACY of the rifle....

[Martin Weidmann]

I rely on the evidence as presented by the WC and supported by the HSCA. If you believe they have "over exaggerated" the evidence then present evidence of that "over exaggeration" instead of just questioning the evidence and nitpicking ad nauseum.

Actually, this entire forum is evidence of the fact that the WC and HSCA over exaggerated the evidence. That's why we are still talking about this case 55 years later.

Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.

It's in the OP.

No, it is not in the OP. You have not presented a shred of evidence to support the claim that postal workers simply screwed up when they gave Oswald a package addressed to Hidell?.

What is in the OP is an example of how postal workers can screw up combined with your "it could have happened here also" argument

[Bill Chapman]

I rely on evidence.

No. You over exaggerate the signicifance of pieces of evidence in order to make them fit the narrative.

If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented.

Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.

Given the plethora of conflicting conspiracy-monger books claiming this, that and the other... yet with none able to replace the prime suspect or prove that anyone other than the said prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, it seems to me that your 'could of happened' describes you lot perfectly.

[Bill Chapman]

Actually, this entire forum is evidence of the fact that the WC and HSCA over exaggerated the evidence. That's why we are still talking about this case 55 years later.

No, we are still talking about this due to the conspiracy-monger mindset

[Martin Weidmann]

Given the plethora of conflicting conspiracy-monger books claiming this, that and the other... yet with none able to replace the prime suspect or prove that anyone other than the said prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, it seems to me that your 'could of happened' describes you lot perfectly.

'could of happened'

It's "could have happened"! Try to get something right for once!