Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Michael Capasse]

As usual you don't even know what you are talking about, the size and scale by definition are exactly the same because they are both referencing the exact same structure. Duh!

JohnM

Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing

[John Mytton]

Moving boxes in the crime scene

This is just getting sillier and sillier, of course they moved boxes, they had to check the boxes for fingerprints. They don't just leave the boxes there in perpetuity that's just absurd. BTW what do you think you are proving and where does this inanity lead you?

Alyea took film of the sniper's nest on the first day and this was broadcast on WFAATV in the afternoon of the same day, note the positions of the rifle rest box.



Day confirms that CE 715 is the original sniper's nest and note again that the rifle rest box is in the same position.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.



Day also confirms that CE733 and CE734 is the official recreation from the 25th(because the original boxes were being forensically analysed) and again note the rifle rest box is in the same position.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 733 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the southeast corner of the sixth floor at the window where the shooting apparently occurred. The boxes in front of the window, to the best of our knowledge, in the position they were in when we arrived there on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. So 733 represents a reconstruction in that sense, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about Exhibit----
Mr. DAY. This, by the way, was taken on November 25, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. All right. What about 734?
Mr. DAY. That is another view of the same boxes shown in 733.
Mr. BELIN. In 734 you can also see this juncture of the south and east walls of the sixth floor where you say the bag was found; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.





And here we see the orientation of Oswald's hand prints facing down Elm street.




From Alyea to CE715 and on to CE733 and CE734 we have total consistency of the rifle rest box, which is also consistent with Powell and Dillard's outside photos. And again I ask what point are you trying to make??

BTW why do you never answer questions and just keep inserting already thoroughly disproven nonsense, it's the old "I have no answers but what about this and this and this...." Yawn!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing

Twist it anyway you want.

You're so far out of your depth, I don't have to twist anything, we aren't talking about combining two disparate locations but both photos taken by Dillard and Powell represent exactly the same building, the exact same windows and the exact same boxes, all morphing does in the following example is show the link between each brick, each window and each box.



BTW your ideas about perspective are perfectly exemplified by your Nix/Zapruder observation above and your subsequent laughable analysis of Jackie and Hill on the trunk of the Limo, so before you erroneously critique my images, go back to school and do a little study in spatial relationships and perspective, and perhaps you won't embarrass yourself even further.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Wow! great picture of the crime scene huh?

...and then the cherry picking begins.
  that didn't take long

Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No

Cherry Picking? How dare you, what you have done here is the most evil cherry pick of them all, have you no shame?

Not trusting Capasse, I read Studebaker's testimony and what Capasse has done is intentionally taken what Studebaker said completely out of context, here's the full quote and everybody note that the quote Capasse cherry picked is that Studebaker didn't have the better pictures on him at that time! Studebaker repeatedly says that the same configuration that Day said were not moved, Studebaker also agrees that the boxes are positioned exactly as they originally came across them.

Mr. BALL. Do you have any pictures of the boxes before they were moved other than those you have showed me?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just these two.
Mr. BALL. Just the two that show the cartons, and those are Exhibits A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. We have probably got one down there I can get you that is a lot better print than that. If you want a better print, I can get it for you.
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Was that before any of them were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That picture right there is the one that shows them, and the other pictures show them before they were moved.
Mr. BALL. You mean Exhibit A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. A and B.
Mr. BALL. Do you have a picture that shows the boxes themselves, just shot of those boxes in the window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. This one, Exhibit A, shows that - this is the exact - now this print here isn't too good, but you can see the indentation in this box right here. This is before it was ever moved, and right down below here, you can see a staple on another box or another negative, this isn't too good a negative here. If I had known what you wanted, I would have brought you a better print - picked out a better print.





Here's Lt. Day totally agreeing with what Studebaker said.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.



And as for Capasse's falsely described restaged sniper's nest,



Studebaker tells it like it is.

Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," was that taken by you?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit D," for identification)
Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box.
Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.



And as does Lt. Day.

Mr. BELIN. In 724 there are boxes in the window. Were those boxes in the window the way you saw them, or had they been replaced in the window to reconstruct it?
Mr. DAY. They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They weren't put back in any particular order.
Mr. BELIN. So 724 does not represent, so far as the boxes are concerned, the crime scene when you first came to the sixth floor; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: Had all of the boxes of the stack in 724 been replaced there or had any of the boxes been in a position they were at the time you first arrived at the building, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not been placed in the proper position or approximate position at the time we arrived.



"the bullcrap piles up so fast in this Forum, you need wings to stay above it".

JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground. "Carried this way" is a perfectly natural way for someone to describe this scenario, meaning "dangling down toward the ground." "Carried" in this context does not inevitably (or even reasonably) mean "in his left hand." That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground

Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys. 

This is the same old argument being repeated over and over with no resolve. I have no problem seeing the problem with Linnie May’s ever-changing story. She was protecting her brother who she knew had no involvement.  Neither did Capasse and Iocaletti have a problem seeing it. What do you think is the reason for their bizarre interpretations? They get what it means. and you don't, instead believing in a 27 inch long package?

“That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.”

That is exactly the point. He would have been if the bag was 27 inches and him carrying it the way it was described.  It is all about “and the bottom he carried it this way”, “and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”. Think of her statement as being from the ground up, not the top down. She always returned to describing the bag almost touching the ground.

If you believe the bag was 27 inches long, how does LHO get the rifle to the TSBD? You do not need to disassemble the rifle to get it to fit in the bag.

 The answer is:

Yes, to being bent over, if the bag is 27 inches long

No, to being bent over, if the bag is 42 inches long.

This was Linnie's very first statement on the bag.
FBI 11/22

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, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

 
 She changed her estimation to support her brother but not her description of how it was being carried. She cannot describe him carrying a 27 inch bag the same way as a 42 inch bag and the rifle almost touched the ground. 

The 12/2 FBI statement has him carrying it even different yet. Thumb down like a baseball player instead of thumb up like John’s depiction. Which is what everyone has assumed.

The WC witness statements are riddled with answers, like hers, that contradict other answers. JBC and Nellie, A Rowland, Hickey, Kellerman, etc. The inconsistency in their answers is how they showed they were changing their stories, and their statements were somewhat unreliable. They do not pass any judgement on JBC and Nellie but instead reveal their inconsistencies on key points. 

Read her statement the way she stated it without a bias. Her description of how the bag was being carried confirms it was longer than 27 inches.

The basis of her testimony was he gripped the top and carried the bottom. Two very different actions.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

At this point, after 60 years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and out, the conspiracists are reduced to pulling out their conspiracy "trading cards." The "What about this, huh?" and "What about that, huh?" cards. The only conspiracist answers now are so absurd and convoluted that the more reasoned conspiracists (there are some) know they can't promote them, they are unbelievable. So they are reduced to the "whatabout?" trading cards. Asking questions is fine; but how many more times do we need to answer them?

This is the JFK assassination forum not the "Oswald Didn't Do It Forum" or the "What About This? Forum." If at this point someone isn't offering a theory as to what happened it's only because they are embarrassed to do so.

[Lance Payette]

Hello??? You quote me but your responses then sound as though you're talking to someone else.

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground

Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys.

I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here. The WC attorneys, of course, saw Randle as she testified - saw what she was doing when she said "carried it this way." I assume what she was doing was holding down her right hand and arm at her side and swinging her arm as one does when one walks.

Unless I've completely misinterpreted something, you've been feuding with Michael on the basis of your belief that Oswald somehow had the rifle in both hands when Randle said "carried this way" with one end "almost touching the ground." If that isn't your belief, feel free to correct me but Michael certainly seems to have thought this was your belief in a discussion that spanned numerous posts on another thread.

This is the same old argument being repeated over and over with no resolve. I have no problem seeing the problem with Linnie May’s ever-changing story. She was protecting her brother who she knew had no involvement.  Neither did Capasse and Iocaletti have a problem seeing it. What do you think is the reason for their bizarre interpretations? They get what it means. and you don't, instead believing in a 27 inch long package?

Have you read ANY of this thread?

I - i.e., Lance - supposedly believe in a 27" package. WHAT???

I believe it was me - i.e., Lance - who SUGGESTED Randle was covering for her brother. In any event, I fleshed out that notion EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I said I was willing to chalk up Frazier's and Randle's estimates to innocent mistakes but that deflecting suspicion from Frazier was a distinct possibility.

“That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.”

That is exactly the point. He would have been if the bag was 27 inches and him carrying it the way it was described.  It is all about “and the bottom he carried it this way”, “and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”. Think of her statement as being from the ground up, not the top down. She always returned to describing the bag almost touching the ground.

Your mistake, I believe, is in insisting that "carried this way" means Oswald had his left hand on the package. Randle said nothing about his left hand, as Michael keeps pointing out. I believe, and as far as I know so does pretty much everyone else, that Randle is simply describing Oswald holding the top of the package in his right hand with the bottom end nearly reaching the ground, and that "carried this way" simply and reasonably means "with the package hanging down toward the ground as he walked along."

If you believe the bag was 27 inches long, how does LHO get the rifle to the TSBD? You do not need to disassemble the rifle to get it to fit in the bag.

 The answer is:

Yes, to being bent over, if the bag is 27 inches long

No, to being bent over, if the bag is 42 inches long.

This was Linnie's very first statement on the bag.
FBI 11/22

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, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

 
 She changed her estimation to support her brother but not her description of how it was being carried. She cannot describe him carrying a 27 inch bag the same way as a 42 inch bag and the rifle almost touched the ground. 

The 12/2 FBI statement has him carrying it even different yet. Thumb down like a baseball player instead of thumb up like John’s depiction. Which is what everyone has assumed.

The WC witness statements are riddled with answers, like hers, that contradict other answers. JBC and Nellie, A Rowland, Hickey, Kellerman, etc. The inconsistency in their answers is how they showed they were changing their stories, and their statements were somewhat unreliable. They do not pass any judgement on JBC and Nellie but instead reveal their inconsistencies on key points. 

Read her statement the way she stated it without a bias. Her description of how the bag was being carried confirms it was longer than 27 inches.

The basis of her testimony was he gripped the top and carried the bottom. Two very different actions.

This may be the most bizarre single post I've ever responded to.

I - i.e., Lance - HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that I thought the bag was 27".

We have discussed Randle's original three-foot estimate EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I have MADE CLEAR that I believe this was a correct estimate and that her changed story was to conform to her brother's story, either simply not to make him look silly or to deflect suspicion away from him. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

I believe the disassembled rifle was in the package and that the package was the length of the disassembled rifle. IS THAT CLEAR? I believe it's unlikely that Oswald assembled the rifle in the Paine garage and carried it full-length because (1) this would have been very risky and (2) the package would have less plausibly resembled curtain rods. IS THAT CLEAR?

Regardless of the length of the package, if he "carried the bottom" with his left hand and the bottom "almost touched the ground," he would have been bent over like Quasimodo. That is not only physically silly, but it is not the most plausible or reasonable interpretation of what Randle said.

To repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE SO CONFUSED AS TO THINK I HOLD THE POSITIONS YOU APPATRENTLY THINK I DO.

It truly appears to me that you are quoting me but actually responding to someone else because NOTHING you have said meshes with ANYTHING I have said throughout umpteen posts on this thread.

Oh, lest I forget: Your "baseball bat" analogy. The 12/2/63 FBI report simply says that McNeely "grasped the TOP OF THIS SACK with his RIGHT HAND, much like a right handed batter would PICK UP A BASEBALL BAT when approaching the plate." Perhaps you are not a baseball fan, but right-handed batters do not carry a bat in both hands as they approach the plate. They carry it like I believe Randle was describing - knob end in hand, bat dangling toward ground. Randle specifically said at the WC that the bulky end was toward the ground and that Oswald "gripped" the other end in his right hand "like this," which would indeed have him holding the package precisely the way a batter holds the knob end of a bat as he approaches the plate. (Interestingly, the average length of an MLB bat is 34", and the rules allow bats up to 42".)

Are we done, or do you require further clarification of what I - i.e., Lance - have been saying throughout this entire thread?