Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Bill Chapman]

Pretty sure Oswald's arm wasn't paralyzed and could bend and raise at the elbow. There's your first clue.

Now, can somebody produce a re-enact of Randle's exact view of Oswald as she watched him carry the package. And how long did she watch him and was her observation of him unbroken, continuous, or did she just glance. After all, no reason to study a package unless something gave an onlooker an impression that the carrier of said package was attempting to at least partially conceal it. Not too smart carrying a package that might appear sizable enough to carry a rifle on the day that the POTUS was scheduled to ride around downtown in a freakin' convertible.

[Bill Chapman]

"Oswald's probable intent".  LOL.

And possible lane-change into bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns alley, spurred by Randle, due to the optics of the 'bro being the wheelman who delivered the prime suspect to the killing field.

[Bill Chapman]

In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.

Order in the court!
Order in the court!
Speak, monkey, speak!

[Bill Chapman]

In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.

Nah, not the entire forum, just the CT crowd, encamped as they are out there on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.

[Bill Chapman]

Twist and turn all you want, but it's her testimony (and that of Buell Frazier) over your speculation to reach a predetermined conclusion.

The fact remains, and anybody who tries it will find out, that a bag of 27" will nearly reach the ground when carried, by a person's of Oswald's height, in the manner described by Randle. A 34.8" simply does not fit.

Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.

Could?

Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground.

Try to keep it at least somewhat realistic. Try carrying such a package in that way and you'll soon find out just how uncomfortable that is.

Also, you're not looking at the entire picture. Frazier described a package that fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and underneath his should. Randle described a package that nearly touched the ground which fits perfectly with a 27" inch package. Neither description works with a 34.8" package.

And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'

Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?
Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. And you saw him walking along, did you?

<>

Mr. BALL. He walked over to your house, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I saw him as he started crossing the street. Where he come from then I couldn't say.
Mr. BALL. You don't know where he went from that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Where he went?
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

[Richard Smith]

The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag

That's easy. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and persuade her to live with him again. That's not something you share with a 19 year old co-worker, like Frazier. It's far easier to tell a white lie about picking up some curtain rods.

why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle.

First of all, the quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question. In other words, if you ask Oswald what was in the "long bag" when he does not consider the bag long, he will reply with a denial of having carried a long bag. Secondly, Oswald wasn't shown the bag they found at the TSBD, nor was he asked if he had carried a broken down rifle in it, so he had no idea what size bag they were talking about. The interrogation reports are of no value to justify any kind of a conclusion regarding the bag Oswald actually carried and/or it's content.

That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.  In fact, he apparently didn't even know Oswald's last name until after the assassination.  HA HA HA.  That one is a keep.  You are venturing off again down the rabbit hole.  Focus.  If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.  We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Oswald defenders tie themselves up in absurdities with their defense of their man. The excuse here is that he wanted curtain rods for an apartment that he hadn't even rented yet. How did he know the new apartment needed curtain rods? Answer: he couldn't. He hadn't even rented one yet or even looked for one.

Remember that he left his wedding ring and $170 - nearly all of his money - with Marina when he left the morning of the assassination. Why did he do this?: The Oswald defenders say he was splitting up with her. He was moving on.

If he's splitting up with her - and that's why he left the wedding ring and money - then he doesn't need curtain rods since he's NOT getting an apartment for Marina. They are separating.

And if he's getting an apartment he's going to need his money. Every apartment I've rented required a security deposit - usually a month's rent or another fee. But he can't get that apartment since he left his money back with Marina.

It's all illogical and inconsistent and is a desperate attempt to wish away the evidence indicating that he brought his rifle in the bag. This may work with one juror in a trial. But it's not going to work with reasonably intelligent people who aren't devoted to defending this miserable man.