Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Zeon Mason]

No palm and multiple fingerprints found at the top of the bag and none found at the bottom of the bag either.

Just that one 1/2  inch index finger print at the top and a palm print and multiple fingers at the middle of the bag.

If the bag was carried at the top with just the one hand then the pressure of that hand to keep the  8lb bag slipping should have left a palm and multi finger print at the top of the bag just like the middle of bag palm print.

If carried as Frazier thought he saw: the bag being pressed into the palm (cup) of the right hand,  then there  should have been some significant print left there also.

So what we have is a curious discrepancy where prints were found on the bag, vs where 2 witness say they saw a hand carrying the bag.

Is the explanation due to the time factor of when the 2 witness saw the bag carried at about 8:00 am? Evaporation of those prints over a 4.5 hour period of time, vs  at 12:20pm , if Oswald carried the bag with rifle now assembled in it , to the SE window, then he gripped the middle of the bag leaving the middle palm print, which did NOT evaporate because the bag was found within about 1 hour after the shots?

[John Iacoletti]

Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.

Maybe because it's only the rifle fans who present their imaginary stories as fact.

[John Iacoletti]

I thought that's what I was trying to do with this entire thread?

OK, the package contained curtain rods: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

OK, it contained a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

OK, it contained something other than a rifle, curtain rods or a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

Then we'll assess the plausibility of each explanation and see if any reaches the same level of plausibility as the disassembled rifle.

We will reach some level of conviction that the package contained whatever the most plausible explanation suggests it contained.

That's how reasoning works, except in conspiracy world.

The problem is that none of it has any plausibility.  It's all guesswork.

[John Iacoletti]

It is a reasonable inference that Oswald brought the gun to work that morning:

A. Oswald's gun was found at the murder scene.

Except you forgot to prove that it was "Oswald's gun".

B. Oswald's gun was last seen in Ruth Paine's garage wrapped in a blanket made with brown and green fibres. 

Except you forgot to prove that it was a rifle in the blanket (especially the Carcano).

C. Oswald was in Ruth Paine's garage the night before the murder 

And the evidence for that?  Ruth Paine noticed that a light was left on.   

D. Oswald took a long package wrapped in brown paper to work on the day of the murder. 

Not long enough

E.  Oswald told Buell Frazier that it contained curtain rods for his room.

Not relevant to a rifle.

 
F. Oswald's room did not need curtains. 

You don't know that. And curtain rods aren't curtains.

G. No curtain rods were found at the TSBD and Oswald did not leave the TSBD carrying a long package. 

Who looked for curtain rods at the TSBD? And nobody knows what Oswald left with.

H. A long paper package similar to the package described by Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle was found in the murder scene

Was it really?  All we got was a photo with a dotted line drawn on it.

and it was found to have Oswald's palm print on it.

Irrelevant to a rifle.

It also contained fibres that were indistinguishable from fibres from the blanket in which the rifle had been wrapped.

a) fibers cannot be uniquely matched to a specific object, like a blanket
b) there is a photo showing the wrapper lying on top of the blanket on a table

Any juror could easily draw the inference that Oswald took his gun to work on the morning of 22Nov63.

Only if manipulated with a series of false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims like the above.

[John Iacoletti]

5. Marina said the disassembled rifle was wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage. There was no reason for her to lie, especially since she thought it was still there.

You were right when you said you're not an expert on the assassination.  Marina never said anything about a disassembled rifle.

6. Michael Paine testified about the contents of the blanket, his testimony being a near-perfect match for the disassembled rifle and his estimate of the length being 37".

His testimony was a perfect match for camping equipment.  He even made a drawing.

17. Oswald said he had brought a lunch, again making Frazier appear to be a liar; when Holmes asked if it had possibly been brought in a large grocery sack, Oswald quickly agreed with this highly improbable suggestion because he knew he had been carrying a large package.

Holmes never said he asked Oswald if it had possibly been brought in a large grocery sack.

18. The likelihood of someone carrying a sandwich and apple in a large grocery sack is close to nil; Oswald offered no explanation for where the sack might be.

When did anybody ask him where the sack might be?  Once you start getting into "likelihood" arguments you are outside the realm of evidence.

And before you try to shift the burden yet again, I haven't (and I won't) concoct a similar chain of "reasoning" for a lunch or for curtain rods, because I don't claim to know what was in the package. You can either prove it was a disassembled rifle or you cannot.

[John Iacoletti]

Eyewitnesses make mistakes all the time, which is precisely why eyewitness testimony is widely regarded as unreliable.

And then you proceed to make an argument almost completely based on eyewitness testimony, or even worse, what you think "is plausible".

[John Iacoletti]

I absolutely do not start with any preset conclusion that the package contained the rifle. I would LOVE IT if curtain rods were the answer! Then we could have a fascinating discussion as to whether this would preclude Oswald from being the assassin (I think not) or was just a clever well-planned alibi.

Careful, you're revealing your bias here.

Or we could have a fascinating discussion about exactly how "I don't believe it was curtain rods" is the same as "shot the president".