Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Michael Capasse]

A lot of made up assumptions by nutters, excuses really, throughout this thread are not reflected in the WC conclusions.

[Lance Payette]

Of course, the rifle was ALREADY disassembled in the Paine garage. Which makes more sense: that he would take the time and risk to assemble it there or that he would carry it disassembled, thereby closer resembling curtain rods, and assemble it at the TSBD? I would lean toward the latter. In regard to the length of the disassembled rifle, the assembled rifle and the bag, we're talking about mere inches either way, so I don't see that we can conclude anything from the length of the bag.

[Michael Capasse]

Of course, the rifle was ALREADY disassembled in the Paine garage. Which makes more sense: that he would take the time and risk to assemble it there or that he would carry it disassembled, thereby closer resembling curtain rods, and assemble it at the TSBD? I would lean toward the latter. In regard to the length of the disassembled rifle, the assembled rifle and the bag, we're talking about mere inches either way, so I don't see that we can conclude anything from the length of the bag.

Except the rifle is too long to fit under the arm and there is nothing u can do to make it look like a curtain rod.

[Lance Payette]

A lot of made up assumptions by nutters, excuses really, throughout this thread are not reflected in the WC conclusions.

And your point is? There is nothing epistemologically suspect about assumptions. All of science is based on the assumption that the universe operates according to principles that will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were 100,000 years ago. I operate on the assumptions that the sun will rise in the morning, my wife will not have left me, and my car will still be in my garage. If you think the assumptions in this thread are "made up" or otherwise flawed, point out the flaws. If you think the inferences in this thread are unreasonable, point out why they are unreasonable and what you believe more reasonable inferences would be.

The fact is, the evidence pretty well screams that Oswald got his rifle from the garage, carried it into the TSBD and shot JFK. The WC did not have to go through the level of analysis we are attempting here, although they did have to account for Frazier's and Randle's testimony regarding the length of the package and the way Oswald carried it. "No, he was really carrying curtain rods" and "No, he was really carrying his lunch" are simply not plausible theories - they simply don't fit the evidence and most reasonable inferences from it. This is precisely why I challenged CTers to present a rational, coherent, evidence-based explanation for either curtain rods or a lunch. Go for it, if you can.

Yes, I assume Ruth and Marina were not lying. I assume neither Frazier nor Randle was a participant in an assassination conspiracy. I assume Frazier and Randle did not invent the curtain rod story. I assume the rifle was still in the Paine garage on 11-21. Those are probably the only real assumptions. The rest of the scenario is either evidence-based or based on reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence. Based on the totality of assumptions, evidence and reasonable inferences, I conclude that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length of the package or intentionally invented a shorter package because Frazier was a suspect and owned an even longer rifle.

If you can do better, show us. Be sure to recognize the critical distinction between "reasonable assumptions and inferences" on the one hand and "raw ad hoc speculation" on the other.

[Michael Capasse]

And your point is? There is nothing epistemologically suspect about assumptions. All of science is based on the assumption that the universe operates according to principles that will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were 100,000 years ago. I operate on the assumptions that the sun will rise in the morning, my wife will not have left me, and my car will still be in my garage. If you think the assumptions in this thread are "made up" or otherwise flawed, point out the flaws. If you think the inferences in this thread are unreasonable, point out why they are unreasonable and what you believe more reasonable inferences would be.

The fact is, the evidence pretty well screams that Oswald got his rifle from the garage, carried it into the TSBD and shot JFK. The WC did not have to go through the level of analysis we are attempting here, although they did have to account for Frazier's and Randle's testimony regarding the length of the package and the way Oswald carried it. "No, he was really carrying curtain rods" and "No, he was really carrying his lunch" are simply not plausible theories - they simply don't fit the evidence and most reasonable inferences from it. This is precisely why I challenged CTers to present a rational, coherent, evidence-based explanation for either curtain rods or a lunch. Go for it, if you can.

Yes, I assume Ruth and Marina were not lying. I assume neither Frazier nor Randle was a participant in an assassination conspiracy. I assume Frazier and Randle did not invent the curtain rod story. I assume the rifle was still in the Paine garage on 11-21. Those are probably the only real assumptions. The rest of the scenario is either evidence-based or based on reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence. Based on the totality of assumptions, evidence and reasonable inferences, I conclude that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length of the package or intentionally invented a shorter package because Frazier was a suspect and owned an even longer rifle.

If you can do better, show us. Be sure to recognize the critical distinction between "reasonable assumptions and inferences" on the one hand and "raw ad hoc speculation" on the other.

All based on your preset bias conclusion.
It doesn't prove anything

[Lance Payette]

Except the rifle is too long to fit under the arm and there is nothing u can do to make it look like a curtain rod.

And your point is? Yes, either the assembled or disassembled rifle was too long to fit under the armpit and be cupped in the hand. Hence, because Frazier repeatedly said at the WC that he didn't pay much attention and acknowledged at the mock trial that the end could have been protruding, the most reasonable inference in light of the totality of the evidence is that Frazier was simply mistaken. If you wish to make this aspect of Frazier's testimony the linchpin of your theory, then you need to address all the rest of the evidence (and lack thereof in the case of curtain rods) and the sorts of questions I posed in my original post.

Eyewitnesses make mistakes all the time, which is precisely why eyewitness testimony is widely regarded as unreliable. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/.  "Frazier was simply mistaken about the way Oswald carried the package" is an entirely plausible conclusion and one that fits the totality of the evidence better than "Oswald was actually carrying the package wedged under his armpit and cupped in his hand" (which would, in fact, require a package shorter than either 27" or 28.5").

Nobody said the package "looked like" a curtain rod. "Curtain rods" was the explanation given by Oswald and accepted by Frazier. Randle described the package as bulky, heavy and wider at one end, which scarcely fits curtain rods. Curtain rods might be at least a superficially plausible explanation for the disassembled rifle, which is why I tend to think the rifle remained disassembled until its arrival in the TSBD.

[Michael Capasse]

Nobody said the package "looked like" a curtain rod. "Curtain rods" was the explanation given by Oswald and accepted by Frazier.

Frazier, said he had no reason not to believe him, because Lee had never lied to him before.  Well then, Lee had better make a package that looks like curtain rods. Not one to be held like a soldier walking with a rifle. Buell, has always maintained the package was tucked under his armpit. That could not be the gun. Disassembled, the rifle is 34.8 inches long. It would go past his ear.

Here is Frazier demonstrating what he saw and did not see that morning.  It was not the rifle.

[Lance Payette]

All based on your preset bias conclusion.
It doesn't prove anything

Are you sure you're Michael Capasse? I would've expected better from the longtime administrator of JFKBioards.net. Maybe you're just having a bad day?

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.

The fact is that my attempt to arrive at the most rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based and reasonable-inference-based explanations LEADS ME to the conviction that the package contained the disassembled rifle. I invite you to give us an analysis that is equally comprehensive and equally (or at least reasonably) plausible. Can you do it?

People are imprisoned and executed because a jury concluded they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt. There is virtually nothing we know to an ontological certainty, which is how Descartes ended up at "I think, therefore I am." No, we cannot prove to an ontological certainty that Oswald carried a rifle, curtain rods, a lunch or anything at all. The demand for "proof" thus is a red herring. What is required is simply tne most plausible, the most doubt-free, of the available explanations.