Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Michael Capasse]

Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.

Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".

[John Mytton]

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 walked 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.

That graphic is just so damn dishonest, Frazier and his Sister were consistent that the package was 27 or slightly more inches long.

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.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm


https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2009.pdf

But in your demonstration that you have repeatedly posted, was run by Conspiracy Kooks who have shrunk the bag even further to 24 inches and we all know why, because the fraudulent experiment barely works at 24 inches and then when you factor in Oswald's height being another three inches shorter than Frazier that would mean the bag would have to be shorter again! Wouldn't it be more realistic to have a man five foot nine with similar proportions to Oswald do the demonstration instead of the relatively giant Frazier?



JohnM

[Lance Payette]

There is no alternate narrative that can be proven.

No one is asking CTers to "prove" anything. Whether Oswald did or did not kill JFK, and who did if he didn't, can never be proven to a level of ontological certainty. The LN narrative is a rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation for what occurred. It isn't proof of what occurred. Even a trial and guilty verdict would not have been proof of what occurred. All we'd like to see from CTers is an equally (or at least reasonably) rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation.

The fact that CTers always decline to provide such an explanation is rather telling. "It isn't worth my time" ... "it couldn't be proven anyway" ... etc., etc. But endless sniping at the LN narrative is worth your time? Why is that?

There could be (and is) some doubt about numerous aspects of the LN narrative without creating reasonable doubt about the narrative as a whole being the most plausible explanation for what occurred. To kill the LN narrative, CTers would need to unequivocally show that some critical link in the narrative is flat-out false or impossible. (This is called a defeater in philosophical terms.) Attempting to do this would be a legitimate objective for CTers, but after 60 years there has been no such defeater and likely never will be. If there is, I'll be the first to admit it.

The other avenue of attack would be to establish a more plausible CT-oriented explanation. Here, sniping at aspects of the LN narrative might be productive if the sniping would support the alternative explanation. This is what I attempted with this thread: How and where does the curtain rod story fit into a plausible CT narrative? Without a compelling alternative narrative, the problem areas - meaning Frazier's and Randle's statements about the length - do not seem to me sufficient even to create reasonable doubt about this aspect of the LN narrative (i.e., that Oswald was actually carrying the rifle).

Just flailing at every aspect of the LN narrative without a plausible alternative narrative really goes nowhere, or so it seems to me. That's why I call it the Oswald defense counsel approach. Defense counsel don't need any theory of the case. Nothing they say has to make sense or hang together coherently. They just have to fling mud and hope enough sticks to create reasonable doubt about guilt. There's some old joke about "My client wasn't even at the scene, and if he was at the scene he didn't pull the trigger, and if he did pull the trigger he didn't know the gun was loaded, and if he did know the gun was loaded he shot in self-defense, and if he didn't shoot in self-defense he was completely insane, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must acquit."

[Michael Capasse]

No one is asking CTers to "prove" anything. Whether Oswald did or did not kill JFK, and who did if he didn't, can never be proven to a level of ontological certainty. The LN narrative is a rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation for what occurred. It isn't proof of what occurred. Even a trial and guilty verdict would not have been proof of what occurred. All we'd like to see from CTers is an equally (or at least reasonably) rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation.

The fact that CTers always decline to provide such an explanation is rather telling. "It isn't worth my time" ... "it couldn't be proven anyway" ... etc., etc. But endless sniping at the LN narrative is worth your time? Why is that?

There could be (and is) some doubt about numerous aspects of the LN narrative without creating reasonable doubt about the narrative as a whole being the most plausible explanation for what occurred. To kill the LN narrative, CTers would need to unequivocally show that some critical link in the narrative is flat-out false or impossible. (This is called a defeater in philosophical terms.) Attempting to do this would be a legitimate objective for CTers, but after 60 years there has been no such defeater and likely never will be. If there is, I'll be the first to admit it.

The other avenue of attack would be to establish a more plausible CT-oriented explanation. Here, sniping at aspects of the LN narrative might be productive if the sniping would support the alternative explanation. This is what I attempted with this thread: How and where does the curtain rod story fit into a plausible CT narrative? Without a compelling alternative narrative, the problem areas - meaning Frazier's and Randle's statements about the length - do not seem to me sufficient even to create reasonable doubt about this aspect of the LN narrative (i.e., that Oswald was actually carrying the rifle).

Just flailing at every aspect of the LN narrative without a plausible alternative narrative really goes nowhere, or so it seems to me. That's why I call it the Oswald defense counsel approach. Defense counsel don't need any theory of the case. Nothing they say has to make sense or hang together coherently. They just have to fling mud and hope enough sticks to create reasonable doubt about guilt. There's some old joke about "My client wasn't even at the scene, and if he was at the scene he didn't pull the trigger, and if he did pull the trigger he didn't know the gun was loaded, and if he did know the gun was loaded he shot in self-defense, and if he didn't shoot in self-defense he was completely insane, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must acquit."

  ...and there's that preset. AGAIN.

[Michael Capasse]

That graphic is just so damn dishonest, Frazier and his Sister were consistent that the package was 27 or slightly more inches long.

That guy is Frazier.

But in your demonstration that you have repeatedly posted, was run by Conspiracy Kooks who have shrunk the bag even further to 24 inches and we all know why, because the fraudulent experiment barely works at 24 inches and then when you factor in Oswald's height being another three inches shorter that Frazier that would mean the bag would have to be shorter again! Wouldn't it be more realistic to have a man five foot nine do the demonstration instead of the relatively giant Frazier? JohnM

no idea what you are talking about

[John Mytton]

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.

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

No need to be sorry, if I was you I wouldn't want my world view smashed to pieces either. Besides I wasn't specifically addressing you, but more for the uninformed reader, and who do you think would come off more convincing, CT's with their wishy-washy highly flexible contradictory conspiracy or the LNer's who base their stance on a rock solid Mountain of evidence.

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.

What are you talking about? Oswald provably owned the rifle, Oswald's relatively fresh prints were all over the sniper's nest, Oswald's prints were on the rifle and Oswald's arrest shirt matched fibers found on the rifle and while not conclusive the prohibitive probability was that the rifle fibers came from Oswald's shirt.

There is doubt attached to EVERY single piece of evidence in this case.

"EVERY"?

There is nothing like it in the world - there should be no questions or doubts - about wounds - shooter locations - number of shots.

That's why you have an autopsy and at this autopsy stereoscopic photos were taken which rules out any fakery or falsification.
The shots were ALL from high and behind.
Kennedy had no exit wound on the back of his head.
The number of shots was three as confirmed by the vast majority of earwitnesses which also matched the number of shells found in Oswald's sniper's nest.

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.

This murder is the most investigated murder in the history of the World with 60+ years of intense research and a plethora of  interviews and based on this you supposedly know what didn't happen, which should lead you in the direction of what did happen. For instance if pieces of evidence were "fraudulent" then we know where that evidence comes from and is one link to an alternative narrative and with so many conspiracy links, it should be easy to say what actually happened, yes?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

That guy is Frazier.

no idea what you are talking about

Seriously?, the estimates of the length of the bag by both Frazier and his sister were well over 24 inches and a 24 inch bag barely fits Frazier when measured from armpit to cupped hand, capiche Capasse?

Randle estimated the size of the bag to be 27 inches and demonstrated a size of 28 and a half inches, and Frazier using the actual dimensions of the back seat of his car where he specifically saw the rifle package estimated 27 inches, so why in your graphic is the size of the package Frazier used only 24 inches? Someone's lying, it's not rocket science!

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.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm


https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2009.pdf

JohnM