There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.
That's a quote from the Bookhout FD 302. An internal FBI document that Randle never saw, read or signed. To let that prevail over her sworn testimony is only exposing the level of your desperation. Keep on cherry picking.....
Btw, if Randle did say what Bookhout reports she said, she must have been lying under oath, right? So, are you calling her a liar?
Frazier stated he did not pay attention.
So what? So did Barnett, yet here you are claiming that, despite the fact that he himself said he was focused on the fire escape, he nevertheless would have seen the two women leaving the same back door that he wasn't paying attention to.
Pathetic!
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
--------------------------------
Fool, this is exactly why the package couldn't have been 34" long and contain the wooden stock of a rifle. Oswald's legs were not 34" long.
Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.
Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------
This level of stupidity is truly amazing. Canning is saying exactly what I said. He guessed the position of the President's neck wound and the Governor's wound, based on the unproven assumption that one bullet caused both wounds. Canning actually tells us that it was
"our interpretation of the data" and "
within a reasonable error of one another". In other words, he is assuming and guessing!
The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------
Another one of your meaningless comments
No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.
Just how silly can you get? Victoria Adams' WC testimony, where she details her movements, was also several months after the event. After the assassination she only gave two short statements to the FBI and one (allegedly) to Jim Lavelle.
You really need to stop making up your own reality and face the simple fact that so far you have still not been able to say when, according to you, the two women left the 4th floor. The reason why you can't or won't do that is a simple one; there is only one sequence of events that fits all the witness statements and known facts. When you change one part of the sequence, none of it will fit. You either understand this and that's why you don't answer my question or you don't know it because you lack the basic ability to process information.
The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.
Yes indeed. And Styles could walk inside without a problem, because the front door was not yet sealed, and Victoria Adams was stopped because by then the entrance was sealed. She was only let back in after it was established she worked in the building.
Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Still no explanation for how Styles could be photographed in front of the front entrance of the TSBD at around 12:36 when, according to you, she was still on the 4th floor a minute earlier? Now, why is that no surprise to me?
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.
Indeed... I know a lost cause when I see one. There is no point in arguing with somebody like you, who can never present a complete, well documented and thought through point that justifies the "conclusion" you are proposing.
You just keep on living in your fantasy world where you can make up stuff and misrepresent evidence as much as you like. Sweet dreams....
