Only in John's Alice-in-Wonderland world could two people both be telling the truth when one says that the other was carrying a long package and the other says he was not. LOL.
Fritz - "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"
Holmes - "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work,
he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said 'Oh, I don't recall,
it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches.'"
The claim that Oswald denied carrying
any kind of long package is just flat out false.
That one is a keeper. It highlights John's dishonest approach to the evidence. You can't have it both ways simply because there is no other way to reconcile the facts to his desired outcome. Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about the long package.
No,
you're being dishonest. Not only by cherry-picking your interpretation of Fritz's testimony from 8 months later and ignoring everything else, but by also imposing your own biased standard of what "long package" does and does not mean. The bottom line is that Frazier said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Randle said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Oswald said he carried a bag that could have been small or large.
The choice then becomes whether to accept the obvious, common sense interpretation as supported by the evidence (i.e. the long bag found with Oswald's prints on it is the long bag he carried that morning) or entertain baseless alternative fantasies that make no narrative sense (the bag found was planted, no one "looked" for Frazier's bag even though they searched the building and found a similar long bag, and Frazier acted contrary to his own self interest etc). This is just a devil's advocate game to see how long a contrarian can extend a discussion with his intellectual superiors to feel relevant.
...and it's back to the fantasy conspirators strawman again. Bottom line again: you can't show that Oswald carried in CE 142 that morning, you can't show that CE 142 ever had C2766 (or any rifle) inside it, and you can't even show that CE 142 was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was first discovered.
In addition, John, yet again, dishonestly cites the evidence. Per Dishonest John: "Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package." John is implying that the long package Frazier saw is the same one Oswald acknowledged carrying (i.e his lunch). But that is not what the evidence suggests.
I think you're confusing your assumptions ("long package") with evidence.
In fact, it is completely to the contrary and excludes this possibility. What Frazier "reported" was a long package over two feet long which he specifically indicated was not Oswald's lunch.
Frazier also reported that CE 142 was not that bag. Cherry-picking again? Frazier's recall is 100% accurate except when you don't want it to be?
Why can't a lunch be in a 2 foot (give
or take a few inches) package? Just because you want it to be a rifle?
Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, as John dishonestly suggests with his selective omissions, that Frazier's package and Oswald's lunch could be one and the same package.
Why? You can't put more than one thing in a package now?
Both Frazier and Oswald confirmed they were two distinct items being discussed - a long package and Oswald's lunch. Common sense also lends itself to the conclusion that no one other than perhaps Fred Flintstone has ever carried his lunch in such a large package.
"Common sense" again. The last refuge of somebody without evidence.
