JFK Assassination Forum

Now, even though Oswald clearly lied, he says ate alone but in the same room he was with Junior and Norman therefore Oswald ate lunch with the two negro men, it doesn't even mean that they were sitting together, for instance I was at a film premier and in the same theatre was the movie star who appeared in the movie, so is it wrong of me to say I saw the movie with the movie star? Of course not!

Another problem for Oswald's alibi is that he assumed that even though Junior and Norman were friends, on this particular day they didn't eat together in the Domino room! Ouch!

BTW how would the interrogators know at this stage to make up a story that Junior and Norman were even friends who hung out together, as seen by the two negro men arriving together at the fifth floor windows directly below Oswald with Oswald's rifle? See how intelligent deductive reasoning beats CT's who make dumbass assumptions!

Once again, we are provided with a textbook lesson in Conspiracy Think.

Frazier and Randle insisted the package they saw was several inches shorter than a disassembled Carcano. It would have been nice for the WC narrative if they could have been convinced, coerced or intimidated into changing their stories, but they were firm. Randle in particular was impressive in regard to the package.

Here in the Real World, we take account of the circumstances under which they saw the package, how much attention they paid and how different their observations were from what they would have seen if Oswald had been carrying the disassembled Carcano (6.3” in the case of Randle, 28.5" vs. 34.8"). If Frazier and Randle had been firm that Oswald was carrying an ordinary little lunch sack, the WC would have had, and the LN narrative would have, a much more significant problem. As it was, they established a longish, stiff package.

We factor what Frazier and Randle observed into the totality of the circumstances, from the purchase of the rifle to its storage in the Paine garage; to Oswald’s curious Thursday trip and curtain rod explanation; to the rifle being found in the TSBD and identified as the assassination weapon. The rational conclusion is that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken regarding the length, which is entirely understandable given the circumstances under which they saw the package and how much attention they would have paid; at the time, there was absolutely nothing significant about Oswald or the package. (A homely analogy, but I've played golf with my good friend at least 50 times. I couldn't tell you if his putter is 36" or 30".)

This is not how Conspiracy Think works. Frazier’s and Randle’s observations are dispositive. Oswald was carrying a package too short to be the rifle, period. From this, Conspiracy Think spirals off in both directions – i.e., whether Oswald owned a rifle at all, who removed it from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD if he did, yada yada.

It’s irrational, but it’s what those prone to the conspiracy mindset do – simple as that. This mindset has been established in a vast body of psychological and sociological research. It’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. The answer to those who treat Frazier and Randle as dispositive is, “You aren’t thinking clearly” – simple as that. THAT is the elephant in the room: You are thinking the way that those prone to the conspiracy mindset think. It isn't the mere fact that you believe the JFKA was a conspiracy that establishes this. It's the games you play with the evidence and the irrational inferences you draw that establish this.

Poor old Earlene Roberts? Well, at the WC she repeatedly used the phrase “didn’t pay much attention,” specifically in regard to Oswald’s coming and going, because she was understandably preoccupied with the JFKA news on TV and her problem with the TV’s reception. She also stated she was “completely blind in my right eye.” The day of the assassination, she described a “short gray coat,” then later a “dark” zipper jacket or coat. Here in the Real World, these are simply facts to be taken into consideration in assessing her contribution to the identification of the jacket found in connection with the Tippit murder. Nothing more nor less. There is nothing dispositive, or essential to the identification of the jacket, about anything she said.

Wow John. Such vitriol. All I did was point out your wild speculation seemingly without full knowledge of Linnie May’s statement and suddenly you become a poster child for everything you don’t like about everyone else’s posting. Maybe it would be better to post Cool Story Bro or LOL.


 Here I will post it again and you can take another shot at it. It would be nice to see a better answer.

"My fault for not posting her complete statement on how the bag was being carried as you obviously were unaware of what she had already stated about the top of the package before she focuses on the bottom of it . She had already explained how the top was being carried and then she shifted her explanation to the bottom by stating “and”--- “and the bottom”. So, you are now speculating she now explains again how the top was being held? By using the word “bottom” That actually makes sense to you? John. logic is your specialty don’t let it fail you now."