Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Walt Cakebread]

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'.

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.

Can you tell us how Linnie Mae described the manner in which Lee carried the sack?

If you're afraid to do that ...I'll post it....

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

There is no cover up at all, unless you assume that the bag found at the TSBD is the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning. Unfortunately for you, there isn't a shred of evidence that this was indeed the case, so all the BS of making a bag from TSBD materials to "cover up" his white lie to Frazier is nothing more than a baseless theory.

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.

More selfserving BS based on nothing else but assumptions. If Oswald lied to Frazier and the bag did not contain curtain rods it could have contained something else that Oswald did not want to share with Frazier simply because that would result in him having to admit he previously lied.

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.

More conjecture based on assumptions. If you make enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like. Just because you assume that the MC rifle was indeed stored in Ruth Paine's garage and just because you assume that the MC rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald doesn't mean that the conclusion you draw from that is anything else but an assumption also.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

How in the world do you know that Oswald had not "even looked for one"? He, in fact, may well have found one already and that could well be the reason from him to go to Irving; to find out if he should rent it, which would only make sense if Marina agreed to live with him again.

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.

Which Oswald defender said that? The opposite is true. Marina refused to get back together with him.

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.

Indeed. And in order to find out if he should rent an appartement for him and Marina, he needed to talk to her first. Hence the trip to Irving. Makes sense, right?

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.

And what if he left the money with Marina for the kids because he found out he didn't need it to rent an appartment after all?

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.

What evidence is there that he brought his rifle in the bag? Please be precise!

Btw the only thing that is illogical and inconsistent is your "reasoning"

[Bill Chapman]

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.

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen. But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

[Martin Weidmann]

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen. But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

[Walt Cakebread]

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so

There was no rifle in that bag......

The model 91/38 Carcano weighs 7 pounds 7 ounces without a scope or leather sling.....  I believe the TSBD carcano weighed nearly 9 pounds.

[John Iacoletti]

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

Pretty sure you're the one with no clue, Mr. "Other Frazier".

[John Iacoletti]

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'.

"didn't rule out".  LOL.

Talk about making what she said mean whatever you want it to mean...