Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[John Mytton]

How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?
  Frazier saw a package that was too small to be the rifle. He was sure of how it was held. FACT.

Curtain rods collapse.

How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?

WTF? The curtain rods are the very reason we are debating. Duh!
Listen closely, the reason Oswald went to Irving was to get Curtain rods, Oswald told Frazier that the package lying on the back seat of his car contained curtain rods. And of course Oswald's room is relevant.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Curtain rods collapse.

Hahahaha! Oswald's room had a very, very long curtain rod, just how extendible do you believe curtain rods actually extend, from a mere two feet to close to ten feet??



And before you get any bright ideas, the curtain rod was bent by the Police during the search. And also of interest is Oswald never asked for permission to hang curtain rods or never even mentioned anything to do with the curtains and why would Oswald even be the slightest bit concerned with curtains, much less replacing perfectly good curtain rods? Just face it, Oswald's package contained Oswald's rifle and that's that!



And here's the curtain rods from the Paine residence and they don't appear to be extendible and even if they did, these 27.5 inch curtain rods are woefully inadequate for the job.



So in closing, you haven't the foggiest reason why Oswald needed curtain rods and you have absolutely no idea why he left them at work, and BTW no curtain rods were ever found, but a rifle was and that rifle happened to exactly fit the brown paper sack which was found with Oswald's prints, how about that!





JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

There are obviously no curtain rods. Where are you going with this?
You only have to prove it was the rifle.

[John Mytton]

There are obviously no curtain rods. Where are you going with this?
You only have to prove it was the rifle.

There are obviously no curtain rods.

Interesting. So Frazier lied about curtain rods? What else did he lie about?

Or are you implying that Oswald lied about the curtain rods, why would Oswald need to make such an extravagant lie, perhaps because he had a rifle in the package, yes?

You've really done it now Capasse, and there is no going back, because either scenario is devastating for your client!

JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

27 inches. Carried in his right hand ONLY.
thank you

CBS 1967 interview:

 

MRS. RANDLE: I was preparing lunches for my brother there at my sink, and I looked out the window and saw Mr. Oswald cross the street and come up cross my driveway and he had a brown paper bag in his right hand. It was about 27 inches long. It was made out of a heavy brown paper with heavy-looking tape on it. RATHER: Incidentally, the search of the Book Depository Building made after the assassination failed to turn up any curtain rods.


Ouch, Michael, you really missed this one. Not even close.

Is English a second language? What these people say is important. She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand. Like you said, which would mean he supported it. You remember like her WC statement: 

 “and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know” This after she explained he gripped the top.

By stating carried she is indicating he was supporting the weight. Remember in her estimation it was a heavy package.

Are you not able to follow this or something? It seems like you are really struggling with it, and it is important that you understand it to understand the assassination.

 

[Michael Capasse]

CBS 1967 interview:

 

MRS. RANDLE: I was preparing lunches for my brother there at my sink, and I looked out the window and saw Mr. Oswald cross the street and come up cross my driveway and he had a brown paper bag in his right hand. It was about 27 inches long. It was made out of a heavy brown paper with heavy-looking tape on it. RATHER: Incidentally, the search of the Book Depository Building made after the assassination failed to turn up any curtain rods.


Ouch, Michael, you really missed this one. Not even close.

Is English a second language? What these people say is important. She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand. Like you said, which would mean he supported it. You remember like her WC statement: 

 “and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know” This after she explained he gripped the top.

By stating carried she is indicating he was supporting the weight. Remember in her estimation it was a heavy package.

Are you not able to follow this or something? It seems like you are really struggling with it, and it is important that you understand it to understand the assassination.

Still, no mention of left hand. 
  That's the part you make up.

[Jack Nessan]

Still, no mention of left hand. 
  That's the part you make up.

Linnie May--”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”

held both top and bottom of a 3 feet 6 inch bag or even the alternative 27 inch bag with one hand. Only in conspiracy land is that possible.

[Michael Capasse]

She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand.

  too funny.

[Lance Payette]

Sure, broken and inconsistent evidence against Oswald is proof he was framed.

Ah, so the doubts about things like the package are now "proof" that Oswald was framed. But you decline to provide any CT narrative because there is nothing that can be "proven." And it remains Lone Nutters' obligation to "prove" Oswald killed JFK.

It appears you use the term "proof" rather flexibly.

Who framed Oswald in regard to the package - Ruth? Marina? Frazier? Randle? Fritz? All of them in cahoots? Why? For what purpose? None of this matters, he just carried a shorter package and was framed and that's all there is to it?

If the most rational, coherent, plausible conclusion is that the package contained the rifle and that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length or fibbing for understandable reasons, how does this fall short of the "proof" you require (for everything except the conclusion that Oswald was framed, for which you say there is indeed "proof")?

It seems you accept Frazier's and Randle's estimates of the length as "proof," whereas all the evidence to contrary is not only not "proof" but counts for nothing.