Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Lance Payette]

FWIW, I also noticed at the mock trial that Frazier agreed with Bugliosi that the rifle "could have" extended beyond Oswald's hand because he "only glanced" at it. Spence treated him as a hostile witness, trying to get him to say that the FBI had tried to twist his arm for a longer package and that Bugliosi had extensively prepped him, but Frazier didn't take the bait. He did acknowledge saying the package was under the armpit and cupped in the hand, whereupon Spence let the matter drop. Later, of course, he said that he and Randle had been extensively pressured to change their stories - which, if true, makes it seem odd that they were questioned so extensively about the package at the WC, no?

Pat Speer made a slightly comical remark (I thought) in regard to the 30" M14. Pat emphasized that, regarding the package, Frazier was talking about something he had recently seen, whereas his experience with the M14 had been long ago. But wait - he repeatedly said he had not paid much attention to the package, whereas he "quite frequently" and "many times" BROKE DOWN an M14. Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.

I'm a bit disappointed that JFKA threads always turn into "evidentiary" threads and that the "epistemological" questions fall by the wayside. There has been 62 years of he said, she said, what about this, what about this over here, etc., etc. I just don't think they go anywhere anymore and that this aspect of the JFKA is dying on the vine. (Look at the Ed Forum these days - it's a pathetic shadow of its former self.) It seems to me that the more interesting discussions, on specific issues and the JFKA as a whole, would be more in the vein of "OK, explain how, at least in your mind, what you are saying makes logical sense and is at least reasonably plausible."

[Charles Collins]

FWIW, I also noticed at the mock trial that Frazier agreed with Bugliosi that the rifle "could have" extended beyond Oswald's hand because he "only glanced" at it. Spence treated him as a hostile witness, trying to get him to say that the FBI had tried to twist his arm for a longer package and that Bugliosi had extensively prepped him, but Frazier didn't take the bait. He did acknowledge saying the package was under the armpit and cupped in the hand, whereupon Spence let the matter drop. Later, of course, he said that he and Randle had been extensively pressured to change their stories - which, if true, makes it seem odd that they were questioned so extensively about the package at the WC, no?

Pat Speer made a slightly comical remark (I thought) in regard to the 30" M14. Pat emphasized that, regarding the package, Frazier was talking about something he had recently seen, whereas his experience with the M14 had been long ago. But wait - he repeatedly said he had not paid much attention to the package, whereas he "quite frequently" and "many times" BROKE DOWN an M14. Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.

I'm a bit disappointed that JFKA threads always turn into "evidentiary" threads and that the "epistemological" questions fall by the wayside. There has been 62 years of he said, she said, what about this, what about this over here, etc., etc. I just don't think they go anywhere anymore and that this aspect of the JFKA is dying on the vine. (Look at the Ed Forum these days - it's a pathetic shadow of its former self.) It seems to me that the more interesting discussions, on specific issues and the JFKA as a whole, would be more in the vein of "OK, explain how, at least in your mind, what you are saying makes logical sense and is at least reasonably plausible."

Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.

Thanks, I failed to notice that the testimony regarding the army service was part of the Shaw trial. That makes my earlier questions moot. Please disregard them.

[John Iacoletti]

All things considered, I see the most plausible explanation being that the package contained the disassembled Carcano and that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length by 7"-10”.

Of course you do.

I once again focus on what I call epistemology, meaning trying to think through how much sense any other explanation would make. For an explanation to be epistemologically justified, it doesn’t have to be true; it merely has to be rational.

The rational conclusion is that the contents of the package are unknown and unknowable.  "Not curtain rods" does not equal "disassembled Carcano rifle".

[John Iacoletti]

Great - I either didn't know that or had forgotten it. I was thinking of the visit a week or two later where Odum tried to replicate the sack with Frazier and Randle and she came up with the 27". The suspicion, I would think, would have to be that she was trying to make her story conform more closely to Frazier's.

Why wouldn't you consider that Bookhout just misreported what she told him?

Yes, It would have been nice if the Warren Commission had asked Randle about the discrepancy.  But they were more interested in furthering their predetermined conclusion.

[Lance Payette]

Of course you do.

The rational conclusion is that the contents of the package are unknown and unknowable.  "Not curtain rods" does not equal "disassembled Carcano rifle".

Once again, you demonstrate the astonishing shallowness of your thinking - which was precisely the point I made about the arguments of internet atheists.

We do have (1) the curtain rod testimony as outlined in my original post and the questions it raises, which demand the most plausible answers we can give them; (2) Oswald's story of having brought a sandwich and apple, possibly (when suggested by Holmes) in a very large grocery bag, the plausibility of which (and lack of evidence for which) we can assess;  (3) the rifle and bag ostensibly found on the sixth floor, the evidentiary value of which we can assess; and (4) the totality of the circumstances concerning the purchase of the rifle, Oswald's pre- and post-assassination behavior, and other considerations that provide a lens through which to assess items 1-3.

No, we do not know to an ontological certainty what the package Oswald brought into the TSBD contained, just as we do not know to an ontological certainty that there is (or isn't) a deity. We can, however, assess all the available evidence, make the most reasonable inferences we can, and arrive at a high level of conviction that the package contained the disassembled Carcano. I have a difficult time articulating any alternative CT-oriented theory that seems even vaguely as plausible - indeed, that isn't as comically ad hoc, speculative and agenda-driven as those Greg Doudna has suggested.

In this thread, I invited alternative theories that struck CTers as reasonably plausible. Instead, I get crickets or non sequiturs like yours.

This is the internet atheist game. One can't know to an ontological certainty that there is a deity, hence any belief in a deity is, ipso facto, mindless faith. Uh, no. One can reach an informed conviction (including, yes, an informed conviction there is no deity) on the basis of long and intense study of philosophy, theology, science, human experience and everything else that may seem relevant. Ditto with every aspect of the JFKA.

Thank you for this opportunity to expose the game you are playing and the shallowness of your thinking. I don't suppose it will shut you up since you appear to derive some weird satisfaction from this game, but I am confident that the shallowness of your thinking has indeed been exposed.

[Lance Payette]

Why wouldn't you consider that Bookhout just misreported what she told him?

Yes, It would have been nice if the Warren Commission had asked Randle about the discrepancy.  But they were more interested in furthering their predetermined conclusion.

They "furthered their predetermined conclusion" by allowing Randle to demonstrate and testify at length about a 28.5" bag? I don't think that quite works. One might think that at least getting her original 36" estimate on the record would have been more useful in "furthering their predetermined conclusion."

I find it useful to ask myself "Does this make any sense?" before I hit "Post," but maybe I'm just fussy.

[Michael Capasse]

They put the bag in front of her.
It was too long.

Mr. BALL. Now, with reference to the width of this bag, does that look about the width of the bag that he was carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say so; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?

Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--

Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.

Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?

Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.

Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir