JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
-
Many here place a lot of faith in Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag Oswald was alleged to have carried into the TSBD. So, just how good was Frazier at estimating measurements? Let's stick to rifles as an example. Frazier was in the army, he was issued with an M14, he would have cleaned, maintained and broken down that rifle many, many times. Almost slept with it. Testimony: Q: Mr. Frazier, have you been in the Armed Services of the United States?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: What branch of the Service?
A: Army.
Q: Were you in the Infantry?
A: Yes, sir, I have had Infantry training.
Q: Did you have any rifle training?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: During the course of that training did you ever have occasion to break a rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, quite frequently.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
Frazier's M14 rifle was 44.3in long! Nuff said.
-
Many here place a lot of faith in Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag Oswald was alleged to have carried into the TSBD. So, just how good was Frazier at estimating measurements? Let's stick to rifles as an example. Frazier was in the army, he was issued with an M14, he would have cleaned, maintained and broken down that rifle many, many times. Almost slept with it. Testimony: Q: Mr. Frazier, have you been in the Armed Services of the United States?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: What branch of the Service?
A: Army.
Q: Were you in the Infantry?
A: Yes, sir, I have had Infantry training.
Q: Did you have any rifle training?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: During the course of that training did you ever have occasion to break a rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, quite frequently.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
Frazier's M14 rifle was 44.3in long! Nuff said.
Another factor that I believe comes into play is Frazier's animosity towards the police. He felt he was mistreated and resented it. So his denial that the package was as long as the bag they showed him could have been part of his way of not cooperating with them as retaliation. I once felt that kind of resentment as a young man in a traffic court situation and responded badly. Later my attorney straightened things out. ;D
-
Another factor that I believe comes into play is Frazier's animosity towards the police. He felt he was mistreated and resented it. So his denial that the package was as long as the bag they showed him could have been part of his way of not cooperating with them as retaliation. I once felt that kind of resentment as a young man in a traffic court situation and responded badly. Later my attorney straightened things out. ;D
Yeah, it's quite possible but don't you think Frazier, involved in such a serious case, would have been too scared to play games like that? Personally, I certainly do.
-
Yeah, it's quite possible but don't you think Frazier, involved in such a serious case, would have been too scared to play games like that? Personally, I certainly do.
His animosity still shows in the video interviews. I can relate to my own experiences when I was around the age he was back then. If I felt I wasn’t being treated fairly, I didn’t completely consider the consequences of my actions. I was going to let it be known that I felt that way. Call it immaturity or whatever. But it was part of being young and “full of piss and vinegar.”
-
Length of M14 stock is 33”.
This is an argument that will not resolve. Frazier had a couple of physical reference points to make his estimate. The way he claimed Oswald carried the package, palm to under armpit. Also his sighting in the back seat of the car, presumably over his right shoulder as he sits in the drivers seat. He claimed it did not extend to the half way point of the seat. Ie much shorter than 34”. Of course the counter arguments will include the statements that be he didn’t take particular notice at the time and it might have extended forward of Oswald’s body.
I would rather explore why Frazier erroneously claimed to be at the hospital visiting his step father for a only a short time before the Irving police detained him. In reality it was many hours after he left the TSBD. Would be interesting to hear the conversations between BWF and LMR that occurred in those hours.
-
Length of M14 stock is 33”.
This is an argument that will not resolve. Frazier had a couple of physical reference points to make his estimate. The way he claimed Oswald carried the package, palm to under armpit. Also his sighting in the back seat of the car, presumably over his right shoulder as he sits in the drivers seat. He claimed it did not extend to the half way point of the seat. Ie much shorter than 34”. Of course the counter arguments will include the statements that be he didn’t take particular notice at the time and it might have extended forward of Oswald’s body.
I would rather explore why Frazier erroneously claimed to be at the hospital visiting his step father for a only a short time before the Irving police detained him. In reality it was many hours after he left the TSBD. Would be interesting to hear the conversations between BWF and LMR that occurred in those hours.
Colin, the point I was making was that Frazier never had a clue when it came to estimating measurements. He was very familiar with that M14, he must have seen or handled it almost daily, yet he was off by over 14in!! C'mon Colin, it's a fair point.
-
Colin, the point I was making was that Frazier never had a clue when it came to estimating measurements. He was very familiar with that M14, he must have seen or handled it almost daily, yet he was off by over 14in!! C'mon Colin, it's a fair point.
30 some inches......is that the same as 30”? Maybe 30 some inches is 39"? Then only 5” or a 10% error. Also his sister agreed with him. Just offering the counter arguments Denis, nothing more. As I said this will never be satisfactorily resolved.
I suspect the curtain rod story was created after Frazier arrived home after the shooting.
-
30 some inches......is that the same as 30”? Maybe 30 some inches is 39"? Then only 5” or a 10% error. Also his sister agreed with him. Just offering the counter arguments Denis, nothing more. As I said this will never be satisfactorily resolved.
I suspect the curtain rod story was created after Frazier arrived home after the shooting.
That's absolutely fine Colin, no probs. It wouldn't be much of a forum if we all agreed. Thumb1:
-
Frazier might have assumed he was being asked about the broken-down length of a M-14.
-- MWT ;)
-
30 some inches......is that the same as 30”? Maybe 30 some inches is 39"? Then only 5” or a 10% error. Also his sister agreed with him. Just offering the counter arguments Denis, nothing more. As I said this will never be satisfactorily resolved.
I suspect the curtain rod story was created after Frazier arrived home after the shooting.
Hahaha, who estimates the length of an object that they think is an inch away from 40 inches as being 30 inches plus some odd inches?
JohnM
-
Hahaha, who estimates the length of an object that they think is an inch away from 40 inches as being 30 inches plus some odd inches?
JohnM
I don’t know......is some odd =0? That is what was proposed. How many is "some odd" John?
-
I don’t know......is some odd =0? That is what was proposed. How many is "some odd" John?
Let me use an analogy, say a microwave is $390 would anyone describe the price as 300 some odd dollars? Personally I would describe a $310 microwave as 300 some odd dollars and a $390 microwave as about $400?
And as for what is an odd amount, it's obviously not an odd number as in 1, 3,5, 7... but he's representing an amount and within context it's like describing there's a crowd of people and there is the odd one or two that stand out, Frazier's meaning is beyond obvious.
I can't speak for Denis but his maths implies that some odd was actually =0.3, which fits the above criteria of an odd amount.
Btw I'm currently doing a stack of research while looking for a microwave so I know what I'm talking about!
JohnM
-
Let me use an analogy, say a microwave is $390 would anyone describe the price as 300 some odd dollars? Personally I would describe a $310 microwave as 300 some odd dollars and a $390 microwave as about $400?
And as for what is an odd amount, it's obviously not an odd number as in 1, 3,5, 7... but he's representing an amount and within context it's like describing there's a crowd of people and there is the odd one or two that stand out, Frazier's meaning is beyond obvious.
I can't speak for Denis but his maths implies that some odd was actually =0.3, which fits the above criteria of an odd amount.
Btw I'm currently doing a stack of research while looking for a microwave so I know what I'm talking about!
JohnM
I might argue that your analogy is misleading due to the scale factor. Something in the hundreds vs something in the tens may not be the same. But as I said before, this is an unresolvable argument. Lots of assumptions on both sides. In this case the assumption is that Frazier consistently under estimates length......so does his sister, apparently a heritable trait :)
PS.....I know the earliest report has her estimate as 36” or so......round and round we go.
-
I've broken down a rifle many times and witnessed others doing it too. I remember it as a very distinct sound, easy to recognize, and different to the sound of metal curtain rods.
Inside the bag the gun parts would make a lot of noise even when kept together with a piece of string. It would take at least a towel to disguise the sound.
We have no evidence of a piece of string or a towel.
I find it strange that we have not seen many YouTube videos trying to reproduce the event. If you know of any I would like to see it.
When it comes down to interpret behaviour through psychology we may as well think that Frazier was reluctant to collaborate with the FBI in what they wanted him to say since this was in fact not what he saw. So he collaborated protesting in his own way.
In any case he would have recognized the sound of rattling gun parts.
-
I've broken down a rifle many times and witnessed others doing it too. I remember it as a very distinct sound, easy to recognize, and different to the sound of metal curtain rods.
Inside the bag the gun parts would make a lot of noise even when kept together with a piece of string. It would take at least a towel to disguise the sound.
We have no evidence of a piece of string or a towel.
I find it strange that we have not seen many YouTube videos trying to reproduce the event. If you know of any I would like to see it.
When it comes down to interpret behaviour through psychology we may as well think that Frazier was reluctant to collaborate with the FBI in what they wanted him to say since this was in fact not what he saw. So he collaborated protesting in his own way.
In any case he would have recognized the sound of rattling gun parts.
Not so fast:
1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence.
2) Oswald gets the bag out of the car—while Buell guns the engine—and walks a distance away.
3) Buell leaves the vehicle, and Oswald promptly marches off, alone, towards his destiny.
4) Buell holds up the quickly-widening rear, lagging behind while trainspotting.
Buell had no reason to listen for any damn sounds from the bag.
Oswald was obviously trying like hell to conceal the full size of the bag.
-
Not so fast:
1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence.
2) Oswald gets the bag out of the car—while Buell guns the engine—and walks a distance away.
3) Buell leaves the vehicle, and Oswald promptly marches off, alone, towards his destiny.
4) Buell holds up the quickly-widening rear, lagging behind while trainspotting.
Buell had no reason to listen for any damn sounds from the bag.
Oswald was obviously trying like hell to conceal the full size of the bag.
The fast and furious here is you :)
In four small steps for a man you've shown that Frazier hardly saw the bag.
If so, the bag might as well be Oswald's lunch bag, a big step for mankind :)
Besides, I was just making a point of adding something to the debate which is not often mentioned. Otherwise I never posted about this subject.
Apparently nobody saw Oswald bringing the bag (riffle?) to the six floor and nobody saw him coming down again after the shooting. So if it hadn't been for Frazier ...?
Oswald, however, must have had plenty of time since he created the most neatly folded assassination bag in history ...
-
1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence.
Exactly!
If you're just carrying sandwiches, wouldn't you simply just wait for Frazier while holding your sandwiches, I mean they really aren't that heavy but if your package contains a rifle then I reckon that you would want to conceal it as quickly as possible.
If you're just carrying your sandwiches why would you even put your sandwiches on the back seat of Frazier's car, it doesn't make sense, so obviously that's why Oswald told his interrogators that he carried his sandwiches on his lap which unfortunately is completely contradicted by two eyewitnesses.
And besides all that it's just rude, it's not as if Oswald had any special rights to Frazier's car, Oswald didn't offer to buy gasolene and even when Frazier was giving a big hint and specifically went to the service station with Oswald in the car, Oswald still didn't offer his mate a buck or two. What a nice guy!
Mr. BALL - Did he pay for any part of the trip, buy your gasoline?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever stop on the way home on Friday night and buy anything?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; stopped one time and bought some gas, I remember.
Mr. BALL - Did he pay for it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did he offer to?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
JohnM
-
Exactly!
If you're just carrying sandwiches, wouldn't you simply just wait for Frazier while holding your sandwiches, I mean they really aren't that heavy but if your package contains a rifle then I reckon that you would want to conceal it as quickly as possible.
If you're just carrying your sandwiches why would you even put your sandwiches on the back seat of Frazier's car, it doesn't make sense, so obviously that's why Oswald told his interrogators that he carried his sandwiches on his lap which unfortunately is completely contradicted by two eyewitnesses.
And besides all that it's just rude, it's not as if Oswald had any special rights to Frazier's car, Oswald didn't offer to buy gasolene and even when Frazier was giving a big hint and specifically went to the service station with Oswald in the car, Oswald still didn't offer his mate a buck or two. What a nice guy!
Mr. BALL - Did he pay for any part of the trip, buy your gasoline?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever stop on the way home on Friday night and buy anything?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; stopped one time and bought some gas, I remember.
Mr. BALL - Did he pay for it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did he offer to?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.
JohnM
Interesting observation indeed, and deserves our attention ...
It may mean something or it may not, Oswald may bring something different than his lunch bag to the TSBD, however ...
Getting it anywhere near the size of a riffle is another story ...
In any case, for CT's who have adopted to "the new CT line of investigation" as described in this other thread, this does not actually constitute a problem ...
"The number one CT nightmare question ..."
(Don't know yet how to link it :) )
-
Not so fast:
1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence.
2) Oswald gets the bag out of the car—while Buell guns the engine—and walks a distance away.
3) Buell leaves the vehicle, and Oswald promptly marches off, alone, towards his destiny.
4) Buell holds up the quickly-widening rear, lagging behind while trainspotting.
Buell had no reason to listen for any damn sounds from the bag.
Oswald was obviously trying like hell to conceal the full size of the bag.
"1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence."
:D
Randle used her xray vision to see him do it.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-08.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-09.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
-
"1) Oswald, conveniently, places the bag in the car with Buell still inside the residence."
:D
Randle used her xray vision to see him do it.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-08.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-09.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
Seriously?
In the photo from Randles position from inside the garage we can easily see the specular highlights of the car beyond, the wall isn't solid but is made up of slats. The Commission exhibit that is posted is no better than a photocopy, was taken at a different time of day with what looks like a flash and even if we had a pristine original the contrast range of a camera photo is nowhere near that of the human eye.
As the camera which is level with the car bonnet approaches Frazier's car we can see through the slats that are below the horizontal plane of the camera and we know that Randle was looking down on the roof of the car in the garage so she would have a clear view of Frazier's car.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
Like the slatted wall, the same principle can be observed with venetian blinds. In these more modern images the outside objects can be clearly made out and with the evidence we have, Randle's view would be similar.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zd9cjym/Venetian-Blinds.jpg)
Frazier reinforces his sister's testimony because he sees the package on the back seat of his car, SlaM DunK!
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
JohnM
-
"specular highlights"
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
"specular highlights"
Thanks for bumping this thread, I saw Gary Craig looking but obviously he couldn't find the appropriate emoticon.
Seriously?
In the photo from Randles position from inside the garage we can easily see the specular highlights of the car beyond, the wall isn't solid but is made up of slats. The Commission exhibit that is posted is no better than a photocopy, was taken at a different time of day with what looks like a flash and even if we had a pristine original the contrast range of a camera photo is nowhere near that of the human eye.
As the camera which is level with the car bonnet approaches Frazier's car we can see through the slats that are below the horizontal plane of the camera and we know that Randle was looking down on the roof of the car in the garage so she would have a clear view of Frazier's car.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
Like the slatted wall, the same principle can be observed with venetian blinds. In these more modern images the outside objects can be clearly made out and with the evidence we have, Randle's view would be similar.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zd9cjym/Venetian-Blinds.jpg)
Frazier reinforces his sister's testimony because he sees the package on the back seat of his car, SlaM DunK!
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
JohnM
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
Can anyone even see a car on the other side of this wall, much less whether somebody is opening a back door on the opposite side of the car?
"specular highlights". LOL.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
Can anyone even see a car on the other side of this wall, much less whether somebody is opening a back door on the opposite side of the car?
"specular highlights". LOL.
What's to argue, even in your horrible photocopy quality photo we can see through the slats.
It's not a solid wall, it has big holes in it!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
-
Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package Oswald carried on 22 November 1963 is just that: An estimate!
It's not a measurement with a tape measure or ruler: It's a guess. Therefore, by definition, an estimate cannot be absolutely accurate. It just a matter of "how" inaccurate is Frazier's estimate.
-
What's to argue, even in your horrible photocopy quality photo we can see through the slats.
JohnM
What can you see on the other side of the slats, John?
-
What can you see on the other side of the slats, John?
Even in the poor photocopy quality exhibit, it's clear if someone was passing behind those slats you would see someone moving behind those slats and you would see them approach the rear of the car then you would hear the rear car door opening, it's not rocket science.
Btw you do realize that the garage wall at the Frazier residence wasn't a solid wall, and that along the length of the wall there were huge openings, you know holes that you can see through.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
-
Even in the poor photocopy quality exhibit, it's clear if someone was passing behind those slats you would see someone moving behind those slats and you would see them approach the rear of the car then you would hear the rear car door opening, it's not rocket science.
Btw you do realize that the garage wall at the Frazier residence wasn't a solid wall, and that along the length of the wall there were huge openings, you know holes that you can see through.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
Interesting your reply to what could you see is you would "hear the door opening." :D
But not what you can see.
-
Interesting your reply to what could you see is you would "hear the door opening." :D
But not what you can see.
Huh? Another Kook who edits and misrepresents what I say.
Anyway Ray, stop running and answer the question.
I proved that the wall was not solid but was made up of slats, between the slats was not glass, not polycarbonate but cool clean clear air, what stopped Linnie Mae Randle from seeing through the air between the slats?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
-
Huh? Another Kook who edits and misrepresents what I say.
No not editing just emphasising what you said in reply to what can you see "you would "hear the door opening." as if that had anything to do with what you could see.
Anyway Ray, stop running and answer the question.
Now why don't you stop running and answer my question. What can you see beyond the slats in the photo, John?
I proved that the wall was not solid but was made up of slats, between the slats was not glass, not polycarbonate but cool clean clear air, what stopped Linnie Mae Randle from seeing through the air between the slats?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
According to the photo, tell us what you think she could see between the slats, John, not what you want her to have seen.
-
According to the photo, tell us what you think she could see between the slats, John, not what you want her to have seen.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
First of all it's not a photo but a poor multi generational, black and white, overly saturated, photocopy quality image, strike 1.
Secondly the original photo was taken with a flash and at a different time of day than what Linnie Mae saw. strike 2.
Thirdly even the best camera can't emulate the contrast range of the human eye. Strike 3 and you're out!
Btw my question is valid and still stands, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through the open slats?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zd9cjym/Venetian-Blinds.jpg)
JohnM
-
"specular highlights"
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
Iacoletti,
You have a "problem" with an example of technical visual terminology in the context of the JFK assassination, especially when it's used to build a case against your boy, Oswald?
Kinda like your unwillingness to understand why your putative, temporary "Glasses Woman" in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery) appears to you NOT to be wearing glasses, after all, especially after you enlarge the heck out of her face and ignore the fact that her face is turned to her right, directly into the low, late-November noontime sun, and that the glass in her right lens is refracting and reflecting said light in such a way as to "obliterate," in the photo, the black plastic frame on that side of her face?
And you conclude, therefore, that that horizontal black thing in the area of her eyes couldn't possibly be glasses, but is obviously a dragonfly, or a tree branch, or a floating shadow, or way too much mascara, instead?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
Btw my question is valid and still stands, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through the open slats?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zd9cjym/Venetian-Blinds.jpg)
JohnM
To answer your question look at the photo. You can't see very much at all through the slats.
This is what she said in her testimony
"Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway."
She assumed he was putting the package in the car. She couldn't have seen him do that through the slats.
-
To answer your question look at the photo. You can't see very much at all through the slats.
This is what she said in her testimony
"Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway."
She assumed he was putting the package in the car. She couldn't have seen him do that through the slats.
Ray,
Do you believe she could tell he was opening that car door, and if so, do you believe her assumption was correct (or maybe not, and that he was just looking inside the car to see if there was anything in it he could steal, or perhaps admiring its upholstery, and that he stuffed his package down his trousers, instead)?
-- MWT ;)
-
Ray,
Do you believe she could tell he was opening that car door, and if so, do you believe her assumption was correct (or maybe not, and that he was just looking inside the car to see if there was anything in it he could steal, or perhaps admiring its upholstery, and that he stuffed his package down his trousers, instead)?
-- MWT ;)
No I don't believe the curtain rod story at all. >:(
-
Even in the poor photocopy quality exhibit, it's clear if someone was passing behind those slats you would see someone moving behind those slats and you would see them approach the rear of the car then you would hear the rear car door opening, it's not rocket science.
That's not what she claimed.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did he do?
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door.
That's some pretty impressive hearing skills.
-
First of all it's not a photo but a poor multi generational, black and white, overly saturated, photocopy quality image, strike 1.
Secondly the original photo was taken with a flash and at a different time of day than what Linnie Mae saw. strike 2.
Thirdly even the best camera can't emulate the contrast range of the human eye. Strike 3 and you're out!
So, your evidence that she saw Oswald open the rear door on the opposite side of the car and lay a package down on the back seat is that you want it to be true?
Got it.
-
Iacoletti,
You have a "problem" with an example of technical visual terminology in the context of the JFK assassination, especially when it's used to build a case against your boy, Oswald?
Kinda like your unwillingness to understand why your putative, temporary "Glasses Woman" in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery) appears to you NOT to be wearing glasses, after all, especially after you enlarge the heck out of her face and ignore the fact that her face is turned to her right, directly into the low, late-November noontime sun, and that the glass in her right lens is refracting and reflecting said light in such a way as to "obliterate," in the photo, the black plastic frame on that side of her face?
And you conclude, therefore, that that horizontal black thing in the area of her eyes couldn't possibly be glasses, but is obviously a dragonfly, or a tree branch, or a floating shadow, or way too much mascara, instead?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Captain Obsession strikes again.
-
No I don't believe the curtain rod story at all. >:(
Neither does Buell Frazier.
He doesn't think Oswald's long package contained a rifle.
He doesn't know what was in Oswald's long package... or apparently cares.
But "wonder of wonders": He believes that Lee Oswald lied to him about "curtain rods".
Another one who does not care about: "Where does this lead"?
-
The Captains Contrarian are at it again. What is being alleged? That Randle is making up the story for some unknown reason? She lied about seeing Oswald place the package in the car. These are same guys who refuse to ever acknowledge that they are claiming a conspiracy even by implication but time and again they suggest random citizens lied about what they saw. Not just mistaken but an outright intentional lie. The why is always left for us to ponder. Remember is it a "small" conspiracy that simply involves everyone in Dallas.
-
The Captains Contrarian are at it again. What is being alleged?
That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.
Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar? It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't. We only have one photo from Randle's position. Do you see the car? Do you see the back door of the car? Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?
-
That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.
Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar? It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't. We only have one photo from Randle's position. Do you see the car? Do you see the back door of the car? Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?
Objection! Precedent renders your unimpeachable assertions irrelevant. Sorry, I don't make the rules, I merely accept their constraints!
A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down…
Custer: The Legend of the Martyred Hero (https://books.google.com/books?id=DDaKzWmMfuYC&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=legend+of+custer+almost+immediately&source=bl&ots=E8e21niO64&sig=ACfU3U1ef7WOt_tw1-lXnytsZvWVSbaO0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx4sDiiIjjAhVoh-AKHXfdBBMQ6AEwEXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CusterLegend1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CusterLegend2of2.jpg)
-
That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.
Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar? It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't. We only have one photo from Randle's position. Do you see the car? Do you see the back door of the car? Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?
The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
-
The Captains Contrarian are at it again. What is being alleged? That Randle is making up the story for some unknown reason? She lied about seeing Oswald place the package in the car. These are same guys who refuse to ever acknowledge that they are claiming a conspiracy even by implication but time and again they suggest random citizens lied about what they saw. Not just mistaken but an outright intentional lie. The why is always left for us to ponder. Remember is it a "small" conspiracy that simply involves everyone in Dallas.
Remember is it a "small" conspiracy that simply involves everyone in Dallas.
Thumb1:
Some CT suggestions on what happened.
• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.
• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.
• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.
JohnM
-
The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
JohnM
What's stopping you telling us what you see through the "air", in the photo, John?
-
Thumb1:
Some CT suggestions on what happened.
• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.
• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.
• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.
JohnM
The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car. I wonder how "he" got to her so fast? The notion that someone could control and coerce every random citizen into lying after the fact is laughable kookery. Imagine the fantasy conspirator darting from place to place to find all these people and somehow coerce them into lying that very day. Randle, Whaley, Brewer, Postal, all the Tippit witnesses, Brennan and on and on. John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense. He knows Oswald is guilty. This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex. And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.
-
The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car. I wonder how "he" got to her so fast? The notion that someone could control and coerce every random citizen into lying after the fact is laughable kookery. Imagine the fantasy conspirator darting from place to place to find all these people and somehow coerce them into lying that very day. Randle, Whaley, Brewer, Postal, all the Tippit witnesses, Brennan and on and on. John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense. He knows Oswald is guilty. This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex. And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.
I never understood how "they" (the conspirators who framed LHO) could control all of this, e.g., coerce or threaten witnesses to say what they wanted, but not have, let's say, five or six witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza state they saw Oswald shoot JFK from the sniper's nest. Why not coerce/frighten/threaten them too?
Supposedly the Tippit shooting witnesses were all manipulated into saying Oswald shot Tippit. But these powerful conspirators couldn't get witnesses to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK? I would think implicating Oswald into shooting JFK was far more critical than implicating him in shooting a DPD officer.
But the conspiracy crowd doesn't like these types of obvious questions. To be fair, if I was a conspiracy believer I'd run from them too.
-
I never understood how "they" (the conspirators who framed LHO) could control all of this, e.g., coerce or threaten witnesses to say what they wanted, but not have, let's say, five or six witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza state they saw Oswald shoot JFK from the sniper's nest. Why not coerce/frighten/threaten them too?
Supposedly the Tippit shooting witnesses were all manipulated into saying Oswald shot Tippit. But these powerful conspirators couldn't get witnesses to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK? I would think implicating Oswald into shooting JFK was far more critical than implicating him in shooting a DPD officer.
But the conspiracy crowd doesn't like these types of obvious questions. To be fair, if I was a conspiracy believer I'd run from them too.
Yes, it doesn't have to make any sense. It just has to explain away the evidence against Oswald. There are lots of classic examples. Like coercing Frazier to lie about Oswald carrying a long package that was not his lunch but being unable to coerce him into confirming that it was long enough to contain the rifle. The entire purpose from a conspirator's point of view to place a long package in Oswald's possession that day.
-
The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?
I'm not sure what you think a moving film taken from a different vantage point proves about what Randle could see.
-
The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car. I wonder how "he" got to her so fast?
Sorry, is this supposed to prove that Oswald shot somebody?
John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense. He knows Oswald is guilty. This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex. And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.
How utterly arrogant. "Richard" doesn't really believe any of his strawman nonsense. He knows that there isn't enough evidence to prove that Oswald did it, so he makes up complex strawman vast conspiracies to ridicule instead of actually addressing the evidence.
-
Yes, it doesn't have to make any sense. It just has to explain away the evidence against Oswald. There are lots of classic examples. Like coercing Frazier to lie about Oswald carrying a long package that was not his lunch but being unable to coerce him into confirming that it was long enough to contain the rifle. The entire purpose from a conspirator's point of view to place a long package in Oswald's possession that day.
Yet another "Richard" strawman. Who said Frazier was coerced to lie about Oswald carrying a package? On the contrary -- he was unsuccessfully coerced to try to get him to agree that CE 142 was that bag. He was also unsuccessfully coerced into confessing by a hamfisted police captain.
-
Either Oswald lied or Frazier lied about the bag. So which is it? Frazier said Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch. Frazier indicated he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he did not carry it that day. Oswald indicated that he carried no long bag but only his lunch sack. So is Oswald the liar? If so, why would Oswald lie about carrying a long bag that morning if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods that would assist in exonerating him? If Frazier is the liar, then he must be doing so for some reason. If it is to frame Oswald for the assassination, then it makes no sense for him to say Oswald carried a long bag but then refuse to confirm that it was long enough to contain the rifle. The entire purpose from a frame up perspective is to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning.
-
Either Oswald lied or Frazier lied about the bag. So which is it? Frazier said Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.
How would Frazier know what was in the bag?
Frazier indicated he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he did not carry it that day. Oswald indicated that he carried no long bag but only his lunch sack.
Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag. That's "Richard" misinformation.
So is Oswald the liar? If so, why would Oswald lie about carrying a long bag that morning if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods that would assist in exonerating him?
Since when are rhetorical questions evidence of anything?
Your "either Oswald lied, or Frazier lied" is a false dichotomy. Frazier could have misremembered. Oswald's exact words could have been misremembered. Oswald could have been lying to Frazier about the curtain rods because he didn't want to air his marital squabbles. Frazier could have lied about the curtain rods because he was being threatened by Fritz. Who knows? Regardless of any of these possibilities, that doesn't somehow put a rifle in that bag or in any other bag, nor does it put Oswald in a window shooting at the motorcade. It's just a weak attempt to make evidence out of rhetoric.
-
I'm not sure what you think a moving film taken from a different vantage point proves about what Randle could see.
Duh!
The film proves that the wall was made of slats.
The film shows the angle of the slats.
The film shows that between the slats was nothing but clean fresh air.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kz7Hv1q6/Garageslats.gif)
Which when combined with the WC exhibit proves beyond all doubt that there was nothing obstructing Linnie from being able to see through the slats.
JohnM
-
How would Frazier know what was in the bag?
Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag. That's "Richard" misinformation.
Since when are rhetorical questions evidence of anything?
Your "either Oswald lied, or Frazier lied" is a false dichotomy. Frazier could have misremembered. Oswald's exact words could have been misremembered. Oswald could have been lying to Frazier about the curtain rods because he didn't want to air his marital squabbles. Frazier could have lied about the curtain rods because he was being threatened by Fritz. Who knows? Regardless of any of these possibilities, that doesn't somehow put a rifle in that bag or in any other bag, nor does it put Oswald in a window shooting at the motorcade. It's just a weak attempt to make evidence out of rhetoric.
"misremembered" LOL.
Oswald came home specifically for the first time ever mid week and told Frazier that he was getting curtain rods for his apartment.
Frazier sees Oswald's rifle package on the back seat of his car and wonders how the hell they got there and Oswald says that was the curtain rods.
Frazier sees Oswald walk away with a long package cupped in his hand.
And you reckon later that same day that Frazier could have misremembered multiple variety of specific unique connected events? Hahaha.
The inescapable fact is that eyewitnesses saw Oswald either put a long package in or take a long package out of the back of Frazier's cart and Oswald obviously knowing that putting his lunch on the backseat was absurd, lies and says his lunch stayed with him on his lap.
JohnM
-
The film proves that the wall was made of slats.
The film shows the angle of the slats.
The film shows that between the slats was nothing but clean fresh air.
What the film doesn't show is that LMR could even see a car through that wall much less somebody putting something in the back seat.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
"specular highlights". LOL.
-
"misremembered" LOL.
Oswald came home specifically for the first time ever mid week
False
and told Frazier that he was getting curtain rods for his apartment.
So?
Frazier sees Oswald's rifle package on the back seat of his car and wonders how the hell they got there and Oswald says that was the curtain rods.
So?
Frazier sees Oswald walk away with a long package cupped in his hand.
And under his armpit.
And you reckon later that same day that Frazier could have misremembered multiple variety of specific unique connected events? Hahaha.
The "either Oswald lied or Frazier lied" claim is a false dichotomy, regardless of whether you are amused or not.
The inescapable fact is that eyewitnesses saw Oswald either put a long package in
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
or take a long package out of the back of Frazier's cart
Sorry, is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
and Oswald obviously knowing that putting his lunch on the backseat was absurd
What's so absurd about it?
, lies and says his lunch stayed with him on his lap.
...or possibly the front seat beside him. According to Harry "there was a coke involved" Holmes.
-
What the film doesn't show is that LMR could even see a car through that wall much less somebody putting something in the back seat.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/nov_22-10.jpg)
Again you show a crude, oversaturated, photocopy quality image and then wonder why you can't see any specific detail. But let's be honest the photo record has never been your forte, has it "Backwards Zapruder Man"! LOLOLOL!
Anyway even if you had the best photo it still won't approach the flexible dynamic range of the human eye.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5013f4b2c4aaa4752ac69b17/t/54f7243ee4b06512fa5fd572/1425482814810/alan+ranger+photography?format=1000w)
Btw you still have no explanation on what stopped Linnie from seeing through an open space, maybe it was foggy? guffaw!
JohnM
-
"misremembered" LOL.
Oswald came home specifically for the first time ever mid week
False
What other time did Frazier take Oswald home midweek?
JohnM
-
Again you show a crude, oversaturated, photocopy quality image and then wonder why you can't see any specific detail. LOLOLOL!
It's the only image we have from LMR's position. You argument that she could have seen more is hardly a compelling argument. But then the "Oswald did it" argument is FULL of "could have"s.
But let's be honest the photo record has never been your forte, has it "Backwards Zapruder Man"!
That's not the slightest bit honest. Honesty is not your forte, Mr. yellow blob man.
Anyway even if you had the best photo it still won't approach the flexible dynamic range of the human eye.
She could have seen something, therefor she did see something. Brilliant. That's as ridiculous as "Oswald could have left his ring behind because he was planning to shoot the president, therefore Oswald did leave his ring behind because he was planning to shoot the president. Therefore he shot the president". LOLOLOL
Btw you still have no explanation on what stopped Linnie from seeing through an open space, maybe it was foggy? guffaw!
Nice try shifting the burden. That's all LNers seem to be able to do. "My guesses are automatically right until you can prove me wrong". Again, brilliant.
-
Thumb1:
Some CT suggestions on what happened.
• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.
• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.
• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.
JohnM
"• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence."
No, LHO was set up.
JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"
By James W. Douglas
p.177
-snip-
"On October 9, 1963, one week before Lee Harvey Oswald began his job at a site overlooking the president's future parade route,
an FBI official in Washington, D.C., disconnected Oswald from a federal alarm system that was about to identify him as a threat to
national security. The FBI man's name was Marvin Gheesling. He was a supervisor in the Soviet espionage section at FBI headquarters.
His timing was remarkable. As author John Newman remarked in an analysis of this phenomenon, Gheesling "turned off the alarm switch
on Oswald literally an instant before it would have gone off."
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oct_63-08.jpg)
------------------------------------------------
JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James W. Douglas
page 47
"In that March 29, 1977, interview, the last he would ever give, George de Mohrenschildt told author
Edward Jay Epstein he had "on occasion done favors" since the early 1950s for government officials
connected with the CIA. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. The CIA contacts then helped
de Mohrenschildt arrange profital business connections overseas.
De Mohhrenschildt said that in late 1961 he had met in Dallas with the CIA's J. Walton Moore, who
began to tell him about "an ex-American Marine who had worked in an electronics factory in Minsk
for the past year and in whom there was "interest". The Baron had grown up in Minsk, as Moore seemed
to know before being told. The ex-Marine, Moore said, would be returning to the Dallas area. De
Mohrenschildt felt he was being primed.
In the summer of 1962, de mohrenschildt said, he was handed Lee Harvey Oswald's address in Fort Worth
by "one of Moore's associates," who suggested that de Mohrenschildt meet Oswald. De Mohrenschildt
then phoned Moore to confirm such a mission and set up another mutually beneficial relationship. He
told Moore he would appreciate help from the U.S. embassy in Haiti in arranging approval by Haitian
dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier for an oil exploration deal. Moore then gave de Mohrenschildt the go-ahead
to befriend the Oswalds, which de Mohrenschildt promptly did--with the firm understanding that he was
carrying out the CIA's wishes. "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years if Moore had
not sanctioned it," de Mohrenschildt said in his final interview. "Too much was at stake."
On October 7, 1962, nine days before the Cuban Missle Crisis began, de Mohrenschildt urged his new
friend Lee Harvey Oswald to move to Dallas, where more of the Russian immigrants lived. Oswald took
him so seriously that the next day he quit his job at a Fort Worth welding company and made the
move. De Mohrenschildt then became Oswald's mentor in Dallas. The Baron's wife and daughter said it
was he who organized Oswald's securing a new job, four days after his move, with a Dallas graphic
arts company. Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall."
-
Now you're moving the goalposts. Shameless.
Oswald came home specifically for the first time ever mid week
What other time did Frazier take Oswald home midweek?
-
Thumb1:
Some CT suggestions on what happened.
• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.
• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.
• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.
JohnM
"• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence."
No, but there were post assassination chores Hoover and his minions were tasked with.
-snip-
"...On November 23,1963, J. Edgar Hoover forwarded the results of the FBI's preliminary investigation to him.(LBJ) This report detailed the
evidence that indicated LHO's guilt.
On November 24, 1963, Hoover telephoned President Johnson aide Walter Jenkins and stated:
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin..."
-snip-
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83#relPageId=9
-
Frazier might have assumed he was being asked about the broken-down length of a M-14.
-- MWT ;)
Or the bag could just have contained a neatly folded light coloured jacket with unidentified cleaning labels being useful to throw under a car at a parking lot.
Oswald would of course lie about it because Marina didn't know about the jacket.
:)
-
Now you're moving the goalposts. Shameless.
Keep up John, Oswald coming home midweek without Frazier is irrelevant to our discussion, we are debating what Frazier himself could have possibly remembered and Frazier can't remember what he never experienced, try again!
JohnM
-
Keep up John, Oswald coming home midweek without Frazier is irrelevant to our discussion,
Then why did you bring it up? Just to pad your "evidence" again?
-
Then why did you bring it up? Just to pad your "evidence" again?
Focus John. The discussion was what could cause Frazier to as you claim, misremember and I stated that Oswald coming home midweek was a change of routine and along with the curtain story, Frazier now had a narrative to remember.
JohnM
-
Focus John. The discussion was what could cause Frazier to as you claim, misremember and I stated that Oswald coming home midweek was a change of routine and along with the curtain story, Frazier now had a narrative to remember.
Because it was a Friday rather than a Monday, Frazier would have a special reason to remember the details differently than any other ride to work? Seriously?
Apparently according to Edward Shields, it must have not been all that uncommon for Frazier to give Oswald a ride to work.
SHIELDS: I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.
-
Because it was a Friday rather than a Monday, Frazier would have a special reason to remember the details differently than any other ride to work? Seriously?
You answered the question yourself, Frazier took Oswald to the Paine residence on an odd day which prompted Frazier to ask Oswald why, then Frazier took Oswald back on an odd day and on top the curtain rod story, Frazier also knew he didn't have the responsibility of taking Oswald anywhere on the Friday.
So all in all a cohesive logical unique narrative is easy to remember.
JohnM
-
"He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department.
-
"He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department.
And how exactly did Fritz characterize "the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister" when he asked Oswald about it? Did he perhaps show the CE 142 bag to Oswald and say "did you carry this package in"?
-
It's entirely plausible that Frazier gave misleading testimony about the length of the package in order to avoid any legal repercussions for giving Oswald a ride to work on 11/22/63.
It's also plausible that he has always told the truth, which is, the package wasn't long enough to hold even a dis-assembled rifle.
Because Frazier has been one of the most consistent witnesses, I tend to believe he is telling the truth...
-
It's entirely plausible that Frazier gave misleading testimony about the length of the package in order to avoid any legal repercussions for giving Oswald a ride to work on 11/22/63.
It's also plausible that he has always told the truth, which is, the package wasn't long enough to hold even a dis-assembled rifle.
Because Frazier has been one of the most consistent witnesses, I tend to believe he is telling the truth...
The smart move would be to stretch the truth (or rather shrink it in this case)
With the notorious Henry Wade circling overhead... along with a raised fist from Fritz (?), fck'em right? But give them their due... after all Buell drove the accused killer to work, FFS
Little sis seemed to change the package 'that almost touched the ground' to something of a size considerably shorter; I did my own tests with a 34+ size and found it came 3-4" from the ground; I'm 6' feet tall, so when subtracting 3" to match Oswald's height the package would be skimming the grass.
-
Little sis seemed to change the package 'that almost touched the ground' to something of a size considerably shorter; I did my own tests with a 34+ size and found it came 3-4" from the ground; I'm 6' feet tall, so when subtracting 3" to match Oswald's height the package would be skimming the grass.
No she didn't change anything.
In her W.C. statement She said
"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. "
Being the same height as Oswald (5'9"), I tried it with a tape measure locked at 27". Holding the top of the tape, the bottom was nowhere near skimming the grass.
-
No she didn't change anything.
In her W.C. statement She said
"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. "
Being the same height as Oswald (5'9"), I tried it with a tape measure locked at 27". Holding the top of the tape, the bottom was nowhere near skimming the grass.
You are not using the 34.8" broken-down rifle size, the size I'm talking about. Be fair, Ray... she said the package was almost touching the ground. You have to work from that.
I agree that the 27" she described later does not come anywhere near 'touching the ground' In fact, in my tests that 27" size came about 10" from the ground (=Oswald 7"). Add the remaining 7.8" from the 34.8" leaves the package skimming the ground/grass.
You need to use a weightier object. Carry it with a straight-down arm at your side; a likely profile if one was trying to minimize said profile.
-
"Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag. That's "Richard" misinformation." - John I.
"He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department.
-
That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.
Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar? It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't. We only have one photo from Randle's position. Do you see the car? Do you see the back door of the car? Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?
Why are you assuming that the car was present on the other side in the "photo from Randle's position"?
-
I'm not sure what you think a moving film taken from a different vantage point proves about what Randle could see.
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.
-
"Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag. That's "Richard" misinformation." - John I.
"He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department.
Like I said, "Richard" misinformation. "Richard" transforms "the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister" into "any long bag".
-
Why are you assuming that the car was present on the other side in the "photo from Randle's position"?
Because it's there in CE 447.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0097a.jpg)
-
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.
Cool rebuttal, bro.
-
Cool rebuttal, bro.
Hahahaha, say the "LOL" man. LOL™!.
JohnM
-
Hahahaha, say the "LOL" man. LOL™!.
Only when you say laughable things like "Oswald's rifle" as if they are axiomatically true.
-
Only when you say laughable things like "Oswald's rifle" as if they are axiomatically true.
No, you can repeat the same nonsense a hundred times which by your post count is probably closer to a thousand but it won't magically come true, it was Oswald's rifle and it always will be Oswald's rifle.
Anyway, in court the prosecution has a mountain of evidence linking Oswald's rifle from Kleins through to the 6th floor of the Depository and the defence responds that there was a lot of liars! Now that truly deserves a "LOL"!
JohnM
-
No, you can repeat the same nonsense a hundred times which by your post count is probably closer to a thousand but it won't magically come true, it was Oswald's rifle and it always will be Oswald's rifle.
You can repeat that nonsense a thousand times and it won't magically become "Oswald's rifle".
Anyway, in court the prosecution has a mountain of evidence linking Oswald's rifle from Kleins through to the 6th floor of the Depository
You can also say "mountain of evidence" a thousand times, but that doesn't magically create one. Which is why that deserves another LOL.