Author Topic: A Slip of the Tongue  (Read 8447 times)

0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Bob Prudhomme

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #294 on: December 07, 2017, 04:20:31 AM »
This is so simple, even an LN kook should be able to get it.

1. Frazier describes Oswald carrying the package cupped in his hand AND tucked into his armpit. Anyone can plainly see this package could be no longer than the distance from Oswald's cupped hand to his armpit. I'm 6'2" and this distance on my right arm is 20 inches, and this is being generous.

2. When Bugliosi asks him if it is possible the package was protruding out in front of Oswald, Frazier likely thought they were still discussing the bag he had described as being 24 inches long. How could the LN kooks equate this to Frazier describing a bag that was longer than 24 inches? All his answer to Bugs meant was that Oswald could have tilted the 24 inch long package forward, and Frazier would not have been able to see it.

Kooks.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #295 on: December 07, 2017, 02:05:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is so simple, even an LN kook should be able to get it.

1. Frazier describes Oswald carrying the package cupped in his hand AND tucked into his armpit. Anyone can plainly see this package could be no longer than the distance from Oswald's cupped hand to his armpit. I'm 6'2" and this distance on my right arm is 20 inches, and this is being generous.

2. When Bugliosi asks him if it is possible the package was protruding out in front of Oswald, Frazier likely thought they were still discussing the bag he had described as being 24 inches long. How could the LN kooks equate this to Frazier describing a bag that was longer than 24 inches? All his answer to Bugs meant was that Oswald could have tilted the 24 inch long package forward, and Frazier would not have been able to see it.

Kooks.

Then why does Oswald deny carrying a bag as described by Frazier?  Is he lying against his own self-interest when he could have directed the DPD to this two-foot long bag with his curtain rods?  Idiotic.  Trying to guess at the size of a package based upon how one person describes another carrying is humorous.  Particularly when the actual bag was recovered and can be measured.  And then imagine how "simple" this narrative gets if Oswald carried a two-foot long bag.  First, how do the conspirators get him to make that unexpected trip to Irving and then carry this bag to work?  What happens to this bag?  If Oswald is cooperating with them, then why the hell don't they give him a bag long enough to contain the rifle (LOL)? The entire point of this exercise?  Why have him carry a shorter bag?  Why do they forget to plant the longer bag in the SN area and photograph it?  Ugh.  Brutal in your animal-like stupidity.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4436
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #296 on: December 07, 2017, 02:19:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then why does Oswald deny carrying a bag as described by Frazier?  Is he lying against his own self-interest when he could have directed the DPD to this two-foot long bag with his curtain rods?  Idiotic.

Not if the bag didn't exist.
Quote
  Trying to guess at the size of a package based upon how one person describes another carrying is humorous.  Particularly when the actual bag was recovered and can be measured.  And then imagine how "simple" this narrative gets if Oswald carried a two-foot long bag.  First, how do the conspirators get him to make that unexpected trip to Irving and then carry this bag to work?  What happens to this bag?  If Oswald is cooperating with them, then why the hell don't they give him a bag long enough to contain the rifle (LOL)? The entire point of this exercise?  Why have him carry a shorter bag?  Why do they forget to plant the longer bag in the SN area and photograph it?  Ugh.  Brutal in your animal-like stupidity.

The bag was made subsequent to the assassination- not prior.


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5821
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #297 on: December 07, 2017, 02:21:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then why does Oswald deny carrying a bag as described by Frazier?  Is he lying against his own self-interest when he could have directed the DPD to this two-foot long bag with his curtain rods?  Idiotic.  Trying to guess at the size of a package based upon how one person describes another carrying is humorous.  Particularly when the actual bag was recovered and can be measured.  And then imagine how "simple" this narrative gets if Oswald carried a two-foot long bag.  First, how do the conspirators get him to make that unexpected trip to Irving and then carry this bag to work?  What happens to this bag?  If Oswald is cooperating with them, then why the hell don't they give him a bag long enough to contain the rifle (LOL)? The entire point of this exercise?  Why have him carry a shorter bag?  Why do they forget to plant the longer bag in the SN area and photograph it?  Ugh.  Brutal in your animal-like stupidity.


Then why does Oswald deny carrying a bag as described by Frazier?

Did he? Where can I find the transcript of that interview?

Particularly when the actual bag was recovered and can be measured.

Repeating speculation time after time doesn't make it true. There is not a shred of evidence to show that the bag found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald was carrying on Friday morning. You can theorize about all sorts of other stuff (for which there never will be answers) all you want, but the fact remains that Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and he denied it was the one he saw Oswald carry. You conveniently ignore that little detail.



Online Michael Capasse

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4103
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #298 on: December 07, 2017, 02:24:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Trying to guess at the size of a package based upon how one person describes another carrying is humorous. 

 :thumbs1xx: yes it is.

Online Michael Capasse

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4103
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #299 on: December 07, 2017, 02:25:39 PM »
simple really
Does the Bag Containing the Rifle meet the following standard of proof?

(a) no relevant evidence is being ignored (no cherry-picking), (b) the conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, and (c) there aren't contradictory alternative conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Re: A Slip of the Tongue
« Reply #300 on: December 07, 2017, 02:54:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not if the bag didn't exist.
The bag was made subsequent to the assassination- not prior.

Good grief.  If the bag "didn't exist" at all then how Frazier described it being carried is even more pointless since there was no such bag.  And if Frazier is making this story up, then why doesn't he claim it was long enough to carry the rifle since that would be the only apparent purpose of such a lie?   Do you really believe the conspirators forgot to make the bag prior to the assassination?  Then it suddenly dawned on someone between 12:30 and 2 that they needed such a bag and they made one under the noses of the police and press in the TSBD?  LOL.   And they went back and pressured Frazier to lie about Oswald carrying a bag but for some reason couldn't get him to claim it was three feet long?  That is quite a tale.