Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Lance Payette]

There's that preset again. The distance from the armpit past the ear is no innocent eyewitness mistake.
How do you mistakenly NOT see something?

Lee walk ahead of Frazier - at one point 50 feet - They have about 2 blocks to walk from the Aux parking lot.
Frazier didn't have to pay attention to the bag -- BUT just has to look at the figure of the man walking ahead. 
There was no bag along side his head.

No, no preset. As Dan Rather demonstrated in the video Duncan posted, a protrusion above the shoulder isn't screamingly obvious. Moreover, yours truly tends to think the protrusion was at the bottom. It's quite easy to mistakenly not see something or misinterpret what you're seeing. Eyewitnesses do it all the time. Again, we have to fit this supposed observation into the totality of what occurred. It is not reasonable to allow Frazier's observation to drive the epistemological bus. This was precisely the point of my 2021 Ford Bronco example. It's POSSIBLE Frazier didn't make a mistake and the package didn't contain the disassembled rifle, but this is not the most PLAUSIBLE or REASONABLE conclusion. That's not my "preset" but the conclusion of a vast number of folks who have investigated the case. If you want to insist it wasn't the rifle, you need at least a reasonably plausible alternative explanation of all the facts and circumstances as set forth in my original post.

[Michael Capasse]

No, no preset. As Dan Rather demonstrated in the video Duncan posted, a protrusion above the shoulder isn't screamingly obvious. Moreover, yours truly tends to think the protrusion was at the bottom. It's quite easy to mistakenly not see something or misinterpret what you're seeing. Eyewitnesses do it all the time. Again, we have to fit this supposed observation into the totality of what occurred. It is not reasonable to allow Frazier's observation to drive the epistemological bus. This was precisely the point of my 2021 Ford Bronco example. It's POSSIBLE Frazier didn't make a mistake and the package didn't contain the disassembled rifle, but this is not the most PLAUSIBLE or REASONABLE conclusion. That's not my "preset" but the conclusion of a vast number of folks who have investigated the case. If you want to insist it wasn't the rifle, you need at least a reasonably plausible alternative explanation of all the facts and circumstances as set forth in my original post.

Rather doesn't say what size his "exact" Carcano is.
Frazier is very clear how it was held and sure it was palmed at the base - it should then extend to the ear.

Mr. FRAZIER - I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit,
because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.

Mr. BALL - Could he have carried it this way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Never in front here. Like that. Now, that is what I was talking to you about.
No, I say he couldn't because if he had you would have seen the package sticking up like that.
From what I seen walking behind he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell that he had a package from the back.

Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please, and the upper part
of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

[John Mytton]

Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.

Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."

Huh?

Both statements can't be true and either Frazier lied about the contents or Oswald lied in trying to save his ass.
Also where Oswald placed the package in Frazier's car, both Frazier and Linnie said in the back seat but obviously the package was way too long to be kept up front, so Oswald lied and said he kept his "lunch" up front.
Now we have a dilemma, who was more likely to lie, innocent Frazier or double Murderer Oswald? Hmmm?

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

LHO’s prints on the bag (CE142) seem to me to support the idea that LHO carried the package into the TSBD with the right hand palm print (CE636) on the bottom of the package (per BWF) and the left hand index finger (CE633) elsewhere on the package. At this point in time I am not sure exactly where on the bag the left index finger print was located CE633. If anyone has that information handy please let us know. I can see the photo that shows the portion of the package that the fingerprint was found on. But I do not know what section of the overall package that section is from.

[John Mytton]

made up  - put to a preset conclusion

Oh, the delicious irony, it is you Capasse that is constantly making up stuff in your preset conclusion of Oswald being innocent, you present simple circular logic, Oswald was innocent therefore everything that convicts Oswald is a lie.

For example;

Oswald defected to the enemy, no he didn't he was a secret agent.
Oswald attempted suicide when he was denied entry, no he didn't, all the blood, the 2 inch deep slash requiring stitches and Oswald's confession in his "historic diary" was all for show. BTW "Historic Diary" LOL!
Oswald ordered a rifle back in March, no he didn't, the mail order coupon was fabricated, Kleins records were fabricated and no postal employee remembered giving the rifle to Oswald and of course a postal worker would remember a single transaction out of literally thousands, eight months earlier!!
Oswald was photographed with the rifle, no he wasn't the photo was fabricated and the impossible to fabricate original negative which was exclusively taken with Oswald's camera was a fake, the government can literally do anything, except that is to conduct a fool proof assassination.
Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker, no he didn't, the map with the cross on Walker's house was a coincidence, the photos taken in March with Oswald's camera were fabricated and the Walker note was about some other incident and/or fabricated.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the sixth floor, no it wasn't, it was planted and besides he never owned the rifle.
Oswald's palm print was on the rifle, no it wasn't, Lt. Day lied and the rifle was taken to the morgue and Oswald's rigor mortised dead hand which doesn't produce sweat was placed on the rifle.
Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time, no he wasn't he was told to hide in a lunchroom because hiding in a public space makes perfect sense!
Oswald shot Kennedy from behind forcing only Kennedy's head to go forward an inch or two and leaving a huge wound over his right ear, no Kennedy's forward motion is a blur, the violent back and to the left motion was caused by a physics defying eleven gram bullet and the rear head wound was surgically altered and the Zapruder/Muchmore/Nix films are all faked
Oswald immediately fled from the scene, no Oswald realized that he was going to be blamed for the assassination and ran.
Oswald got on and off a bus, no he didn't, Bledsoe lied and the bus transfer was planted.
Oswald got his revolver which was exclusively matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene, no the revolver was exchanged by the Police and the shells were planted.
Oswald was positively identified by a bunch of eyewitnesses, no you can't trust a bunch of eyewitnesses who all see the same event.
Oswald was seen by Markham killing Tippit, no she was a "screwball" except that is when she was a valuable time eyewitness and then she was suddenly infallible!
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theatre, no he didn't, he was protecting himself and/or the Police lied.
Oswald repeatedly lied while being interrogated, no he didn't and besides there was no recording so the interrogators could say anything, except of course to invent evidence that would conclusively prove Oswald did it! Doh!
ETC, ETC, ETC...

So as you can see Capasse, CT's such as yourself will manipulate the evidence so as to arrive at your preconceived conclusion of Oswald's innocence whereas LNers just go where the evidence leads, which is a powerful indisputable narrative!
Whereas after 60+ years, we still haven't seen a single conspiracist that uses your conspiracy evidence to make a logical narrative because your evidence of Oswald's innocence has no rhyme or reason and is just jumbled up nonsense which goes nowhere!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Oh, the delicious irony, it is you Capasse that is constantly making up stuff in your preset conclusion of Oswald being innocent, you present simple circular logic, Oswald was innocent therefore everything that convicts Oswald is a lie.

For example;

Oswald defected to the enemy, no he didn't he was a secret agent.
Oswald attempted suicide when he was denied entry, no he didn't, all the blood, the 2 inch deep slash requiring stitches and Oswald's confession in his "historic diary" was all for show. BTW "Historic Diary" LOL!
Oswald ordered a rifle back in March, no he didn't, the mail order coupon was fabricated, Kleins records were fabricated and no postal employee remembered giving the rifle to Oswald and of course a postal worker would remember a single transaction out of literally thousands, eight months earlier!!
Oswald was photographed with the rifle, no he wasn't the photo was fabricated and the impossible to fabricate original negative which was exclusively taken with Oswald's camera was a fake, the government can literally do anything, except that is to conduct a fool proof assassination.
Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker, no he didn't, the map with the cross on Walker's house was a coincidence, the photos taken in March with Oswald's camera were fabricated and the Walker note was about some other incident and/or fabricated.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the sixth floor, no it wasn't, it was planted and besides he never owned the rifle.
Oswald's palm print was on the rifle, no it wasn't, Lt. Day lied and the rifle was taken to the morgue and Oswald's rigor mortised dead hand which doesn't produce sweat was placed on the rifle.
Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time, no he wasn't he was told to hide in a lunchroom because hiding in a public space makes perfect sense!
Oswald shot Kennedy from behind forcing only Kennedy's head to go forward an inch or two and leaving a huge wound over his right ear, no Kennedy's forward motion is a blur, the violent back and to the left motion was caused by a physics defying eleven gram bullet and the rear head wound was surgically altered and the Zapruder/Muchmore/Nix films are all faked
Oswald immediately fled from the scene, no Oswald realized that he was going to be blamed for the assassination and ran.
Oswald got on and off a bus, no he didn't, Bledsoe lied and the bus transfer was planted.
Oswald got his revolver which was exclusively matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene, no the revolver was exchanged by the Police and the shells were planted.
Oswald was positively identified by a bunch of eyewitnesses, no you can't trust a bunch of eyewitnesses who all see the same event.
Oswald was seen by Markham killing Tippit, no she was a "screwball" except that is when she was a valuable time eyewitness and then she was suddenly infallible!
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theatre, no he didn't, he was protecting himself and/or the Police lied.
Oswald repeatedly lied while being interrogated, no he didn't and besides there was no recording so the interrogators could say anything, except of course to invent evidence that would conclusively prove Oswald did it! Doh!
ETC, ETC, ETC...

So as you can see Capasse, CT's such as yourself will manipulate the evidence so as to arrive at your preconceived conclusion of Oswald's innocence whereas LNers just go where the evidence leads, which is a powerful indisputable narrative!
Whereas after 60+ years, we still haven't seen a single conspiracist that uses your conspiracy evidence to make a logical narrative because your evidence of Oswald's innocence has no rhyme or reason and is just jumbled up nonsense which goes nowhere!

JohnM

So many words wasted. Sorry, I didn't read them all.

There is no alternate narrative that can be proven.  All the evidence against Lee Oswald is broken and inconsistent. Sometimes appears fraudulent.
If Frazier was all that was wrong with getting the rifle in - it could be accepted as a mistake, but witnesses - fibers - markings - ownership - or
fingerprint evidence against him is crap - sorry - it is - all of it.  There is doubt attached to EVERY single piece of evidence in this case.
There is nothing like it in the world - there should be no questions or doubts - about wounds - shooter locations - number of shots.

Now, I'm required to create some fairy tale that can never be proven because 60+ years on it is left in rags with lame excuses - after the fact .
I don't play that game.  You are only required to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and the evidence against the accused is a complete mess.

[Charles Collins]

A snip from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, page 3769-3770:


Yet, Frazier’s statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald’s armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier’s description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators (CE 2009, 24 H 409, FBI interview of Wesley Frazier on December 1, 1963; 2 H 228, 229, 239, 243, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier), it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view. Frazier told the Commission that “the only time” he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was “just a little strip [of the package] running down” along the inside of Oswald’s arm (2 H 240). Under Frazier’s supervision, the FBI measured the length of that visible portion to be 9 × 1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald’s right arm, and because he didn’t notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder (“you couldn’t tell that he had a package from the back”), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, “I don’t see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit” (2 H 243). Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier’s conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn’t pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241, 243).

At the London trial I asked Frazier, “So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn’t have been able to see it?” and he responded, “That’s true” (Transcript of On Trial, July 23, 1986, p.35).