This is how the rifle was gotten into the building

[Martin Weidmann]

Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.

There are two (2) ways for the package to be carried "in his cupped hand" and "under his armpit".

I think you're confused. You meant to imply "IN" his armpit; which would mean the package was snug in that recess where the top of the arm meets the torso. That's only one (1) way the package could be carried "under the armpit": with the package length perpendicular to the ground.

The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.

And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.

The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package

And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.

This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier-

Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.

And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.

Which is exactly why you should not play chess.... you haven't got a clue how to...


It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.

[Martin Weidmann]

What an idiotic reply.

Your Ad hominem attack reveals your desperation to reply: Though you have nothing of substance to include in your attempted rebuttal.

Have you seen Jerry Organ's splendid graphic that is a representation of how Lee Harvey Oswald could have carried the long package to the Book Depository? That convinced me it's eminently plausible that Oswald could have carried the package as described above.

Though you have nothing of substance to include in your attempted rebuttal.

Oh boy, not this stupid game again!  There is no reason for a rebuttal to an invented story for which there is not a shred of evidence

Have you seen Jerry Organ's splendid graphic that is a representation of how Lee Harvey Oswald could have carried the long package to the Book Depository? That convinced me it's eminently plausible that Oswald could have carried the package as described above.

"could have" are the two most significant words in that hypocritical BS....

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no "rule-book of the Universe" that says "2 estimates must be accurate if they are the same". The 2 estimates could both be inaccurate.

There is also no rule-book that says your opinion is always the right one, yet here you are again acting as if it is.

[Gary Craig]

There is no "rule-book of the Universe" that says "2 estimates must be accurate if they are the same". The 2 estimates could both be inaccurate.

If they are off who is to say the sack wasn't smaller?

22" and holding a apple and cheese sandwich.

They were under a lot of pressure.

The natural instinct would have been to exaggerate the length to satisfy LE.

[John Iacoletti]

A discrepancy of 8 inches is accounted for by the fact that Randle and Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package: they ESTIMATED its length.

It's also "accounted for" by the bag Frazier and Randle saw not being CE 142 and not being long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.

It's not just the length of the bag that there is a discrepancy over.  Frazier said the paper was flimsier.

An unsupported opinion about how it could have happened is hardly a "checkmate".

[Alan Ford]

A 5 or 6 foot long package!!!

That's too long for a 40 inch Carcano rifle.

Perhaps the assassination was accomplished with a bazooka.

 

"OK boys, the morning Kennedy comes into town we're gonna get the rifle into the building by delivering it in a box."
"Sounds good, boss. I gotta 5-footer that'd do the job just perfect..."
"You CRAZY? No one's gonna look at that and think it's the perfect size for a rifle. And it'd be mighty unecological to go wasting all that cardboard."
"Gee, boss, never thought a that. I'll go get us a box that's look just right for carrying a rifle."

[Alan Ford]

Cool your jets, Mr Smith-------it's not my fault you can't explain away the document! 

Now! Perhaps you could tell us where the WC exhibit numbers 275 & 276 came from?

As usual, Mr Smith runs for the hills! 

Anyone else want to explain how two curtain rods were already "marked 275 & 276" eight days before they were officially received into evidence and "marked" 275 & 276 by the WC?

EXHIBIT A!



EXHIBIT B!

Paine garage, 23 March 1964:

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)