No.11 reason: the 24” bag (give or take a couple of inches) as Buell W. Frazier described the way he saw Oswald  carrying the bag under his armpit and in the  cupped palm of his hand.

Yes, this is a serious problem for the case against Oswald.

Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building. Frazier said Oswald came into the TSBD carrying a brown bag with one end cupped in his palm and the other end tucked under his armpit.

The alleged murder rifle was 35 inches long when disassembled. If the package contained the rifle, Oswald could not have carried the package in the manner described by Frazier. The package would have extended well above his armpit, making it impossible to carry it with one end in his hand the other end under his armpit.

Even more problematic for the case against Oswald is the length of the package/bag that Frazier saw Oswald bring to work that morning. Frazier told the Warren Commission (WC) that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about 2 feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents measured the distance between that spot and the door and found it was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long.

Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, the bag was at least 8 inches shorter than the disassembled Carcano rifle. In addition, in order for Oswald to have carried the package in the manner Frazier described, Oswald's height and arm length indicate the bag would have needed to be no more than 24 inches long.

In response to this dilemma, the WC reflexively said that both Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on Frazier's admission that he was not absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried the bag, and he dismisses the fact that Frazier's sister said the bag was right around 27 inches long.

The WC claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI lab report written shortly after the assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (emphasis added).

But this report was later "corrected," and the "corrected version" said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission." Yeah, uh-huh. You bet.

The brown paper bag did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the alleged murder weapon was described as well oiled. Anyone who has handled a rifle after it's been lubricated/oiled knows you have to be careful not to let the lubed part of the rifle touch your clothes or else you'll get oil on your clothes.

No.12 reason: per BW Frazier, Oswald was wearing the GRAY jacket that Friday morning. Oswald had only 2 jackets, a gray jacket and a blue jacket. Oswald left TSBD wearing no jacket according to John Corbett because he believes Bledsoe saw Oswald on McWatters bus wearing  only the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve. Ok, if that is true then how does Oswald’s gray jacket which he must have left in the TSBD get to under a car in a parking lot to be pointed out by some unnamed person? Oswald leaving the boarding house zipping up a jacket (per Earlene Roberts), could therefore only be the BLUE jacket. The description of the Tippit shooters “tan” jacket does not fit the  BLUE jacket Oswald had on when he left the boarding house. If Oswald discarded this blue jacket before he was seen by Brewer, how does that BLUE jacket wind up being found in the TSBD in the Domino room? And Who found BLUE jacket anyway?

Yes, the jacket evidence is a ball of confusion for the case against Oswald.

Oswald's shirt is equally problematic for the WC's case. Four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a "light-colored" regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. This does not even come close to matching the description of the brown, rust-colored shirt that Oswald wore to work that day, and Oswald was seen in that rust-colored shirt less than 90 seconds after the shooting.

And then there are the shirt fibers that were "found" on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle's butt plate and its wooden stock. The WC noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.

However, Oswald was not wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. The DPD or the FBI must have rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater, not realizing it was not the same shirt he had worn to work that day. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found on the rifle.

The WC erroneously claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting. However, the facts indicate otherwise. Officer Marrion Baker noted that Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the police station than the shirt he was wearing when Baker saw him on the second floor 75-90 seconds after the shooting. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A rust-colored brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Instead of relying on sketchy, inherently unreliable witness statements, rely on the caught-on-film conscious (i.e., non-startle) reactions of seven prime witness to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second pause.

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf

-- Tom

When all 10 witnesses are saying the same thing we can be confident of the reliability of their statements (in the real world, that is).
Plus, they are pointing out something very simple - the position of their vehicles at the time of the first shot.
Combined with Mark Tyler's motorcade mapping program it is strong evidence refuting your own understanding of the shooting.
Look at the position of the vehicles prior to z133. They are both fully on Houston Street. In your fantasyland view of things all 10 occupants somehow mistakenly placed themselves travelling down Elm Street instead of still being on Houston Street. Just have a think about that for a moment. Think about this evidence.

As you know, the Roselle/Scearce study you have swallowed down hook, line and sinker has been discredited as a method for establishing when the first shot occurred after Brian conceded that they ASSUMED THERE WAS AN EARLY SHOT, THEN LOOKED AT THE Z-FILM TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANYTHING THAT COULD SUPPORT THIS ASSUMPTION.
Rather than acknowledge any of the considerable evidence pointing to a first shot at z222/z223, you still peddle this discredited theory because....well, that's what you're like.

No one ran to the underpass until DPD police officer Clyde Haygood ran there, following a radio transmission from Chief Curry to "Get men on top of that over-underpass, see what happened up there!  Go up to that overpass!"  Haygood can be seen parking his motorcycle at the north west curb in the Robert Hughes film.   The knoll is completely void of spectators, except for he and he alone running there, and climbing up onto the concrete abutment of the underpass where he began scanning the area.

 Furthermore, a photograph taken by Wilma Bond reveals Haygood as he reaches the underpass.  It wasn't until after he reached the underpass that people saw him running to that location and began to follow him up the knoll.  Haygood led the chase up the knoll following Chief Curry's transmission to go there.

[...]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Instead of relying on sketchy, inherently unreliable witness statements, rely on the caught-on-film conscious (i.e., non-startle) reactions of seven prime witness to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second pause.

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf

-- Tom

There are a number of different ways to demonstrate that the first shot occurred around z222/z223. Here's one thanks to the work of Pat Speer and Mark Tyler. It concerns the witness statements of the occupants of the Vice-Presidential car and the Vice-Presidential follow-up car. From these statements it is possible to glean an approximate position for each car at the time of the first shot and from these approximate positions it is possible rule out various theories regarding the first shot.
I looked at a number of theories put forward for when the first shot occurred in relation to the Z-Film:

z133 (and before)
z160
z190
z222/z223 (my own proposal for the first shot)

First, a look at the statements:

VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR

Hurchel Jacks [Driver] -
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."

Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] -
"The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds
were beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an explosive noise..."

Senator Yarborough [back left] - 
“as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."

Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] - 
“we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It  came, I thought, from over my right shoulder."

Lyndon Johnson [back right] - 
"After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."

VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR

Joe Henry Rich [Driver] -
“We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot."


Cliff Carter [passenger seat]  - 
"...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker."

Jerry Kivett [back right] - 
"As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."

Warren Taylor [back centre] -
“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker —the sound coming from my right rear."

Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] - 
"We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."

10 witnesses in 2 vehicles all corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
I now turn to the work of Mark Tyler to compare how these statements support or refute the various theories put forward.

Z133



In the image above the Vice-Presidential car is marked 7 and the follow-up car 8. It is obvious from this image that both vehicles are still on Houston at the time of this proposed first shot and, as such, a shot around z133 (or before) is absolutely refuted by the 10 witness statements.

Z160



Again, we can clearly see that, although car 7 is well into it's turn, car 8 is still on Houston. The theory of a first shot around z160 is refuted.

Z190



It can be said that car 7 is now travelling down Elm but car 8 is still to complete the turn as specified by the occupants of this car and, as such, a shot around z190 is refuted by the witness statements.

Z222/Z223



My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any were needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z222/z223.