Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[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

[Lance Payette]

Or try it this way, Michael:

We will stipulate for the sake of argument whatever you like: the package contained curtain rods ... or the package contained a lunch ... or the package contained something else ... or there was no package at all. WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY.

Now simply tell us how you would answer the questions posed in my original post and how the explanation that makes you happy would fit into a narrative of the JFKA as a whole.

If your point is simply "We don't know for sure what was in the package, and what it actually was can never be proven" - I'll stipulate to that without reservation, but the fact remains that (to me) by far the most plausible explanation is "the disassembled rifle." Your posts read as though "can't be known or proven with certainty" equates to "is completely meaningless to talk about," as though we aren't allowed to reason our way to what seems the most plausible explanation.

[John Mytton]

...and there's that preset. AGAIN.

Just answer one question, Oswald without prior arrangement with Ruth, made a specific unique visit to Irving mid-week to get curtain rods but Oswald's room at the rooming house was already fitted with curtains which were hanging on curtain rods and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand, so explain why Oswald needed curtain rods?





And just to be clear, the owners of the Rooming House reinforced that Oswald's room already had curtains and curtain rods and that Oswald never said anything about getting new curtain rods.

Mr. BELIN. There were already curtain rods in the room, then, when this O.H. Lee came there is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, uh-huh.

Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL. Also curtains?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

And as for Oswald's visit to Irving, Ruth seemed to be quite annoyed that Oswald just unexpectedly turned up without permission. It wasn't Oswald's house!!

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Just answer one question, Oswald without prior arrangement with Ruth, made a specific unique visit to Irving mid-week to get curtain rods but Oswald's room at the rooming house was already fitted with curtains which were hanging on curtain rods and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand, so explain why Oswald needed curtain rods?

And just to be clear, the owners of the Rooming House reinforced that Oswald's room already had curtains and curtain rods and that Oswald never said anything about getting new curtain rods.

Mr. BELIN. There were already curtain rods in the room, then, when this O.H. Lee came there is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, uh-huh.

Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL. Also curtains?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

And as for Oswald's visit to Irving, Ruth seemed to be quite annoyed that Oswald just unexpectedly turned up without permission. It wasn't Oswald's house!!

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

JohnM

How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?
  Frazier saw a package that was too small to be the rifle. He was sure of how it was held. FACT.

"...and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand..."

Curtain rods collapse.

[Lance Payette]

It might almost appear to some, Michael, that you are operating on the basis of preset conclusions.

For the benefit of those who don't grasp the fine but critical distinction between my "preset" LN agenda and conclusions and your carefully crafted CT observations, perhaps you might want to explain the differences?

[Michael Capasse]

It might almost appear to some, Michael, that you are operating on the basis of preset conclusions.

For the benefit of those who don't grasp the fine but critical distinction between my "preset" LN agenda and conclusions and your carefully crafted CT observations, perhaps you might want to explain the differences?

Sure, broken and inconsistent evidence against Oswald is proof he was framed.

[Michael Capasse]

Is the rifle on the floor proof that Lee brought it in?
  It's a very simple question.