Et tu, Bonnie?

[Martin Weidmann]

Uh no.  Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.  If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.  He has ample opportunity to provide an explanation for his rifle's presence in the building which is the point you took issue with (i.e. he was not directly asked).  Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.

Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.

If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.

And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.

Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA

A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.

That's a mountain of evidence to you? 

[Alan J. Ford]

Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.

Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.

If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.

And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.

Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA

A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.

That's a mountain of evidence to you? 

Well said, Mr. Weidmann

Irrefutable proof seems to be something not at Mr. Smith's disposal at the moment.

[Alan J. Ford]

Brief follow-up on demonstrating once again that no one put the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, No one ---->

The following men--in the same space & time as the lying rooftop-tandem exposes the hastily contrived script for what it is...

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody with him?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not

and now his entourage...

Mr. BALL. Or did you see Mr. Truly come up?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I didn't.

and for further confirmation that the lying rooftop-tandem were nowhere near those backstairs in the hastily contrived scripted time-interval they wish to make fact...

Mr. BALL - Do you remember seeing Mr. Truly?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or did you see a motorcycle officer come up?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

None of the trio above were deaf, blind and/or dumb. So, IF they would have actually seen the lying rooftop-tandem together on those backstairs they would have confirmed their presence there.

[Alan J. Ford]

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

Cat got your tongue, Roy Truly?! Cannot answer or Won't answer?! Pleading the 5th?

[Dan O'meara]

'Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long'
Frazier consistently repeats that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
That fact does not require speculation.

I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.

[Bill Chapman]

I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.

CE 1304 This measures 38"* as seen by way of the ruler
See larger size at https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf


*A broken-down Carcano (34.8") would go into a 38" bag real good.. real damn good
 

[Dan O'meara]

CE 1304 This measures 38"* as seen by way of the ruler
See larger size at https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf


*A broken-down Carcano (34.8") would go into a 38" bag real good.. real damn good
 

Your kind of skirting over the analysis I did of the construction of the bag.
If there's a weakness in it I'd like to know.