Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[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).

[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