Name your shooter

[John Iacoletti]

“In accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations”.

[Bill Chapman]

“In accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations”.

Funny how you issue a free pass to a government report, any government report. 

Mrs Randle's observation's include only estimations
Mrs Randle's testimony includes an observation revealing the bag 'almost touching the ground'

My tests reveal a 10" distance to the ground at my height, revealing a 7" distance at Oswald's
Go ahead and call 7" an 'almost touching the ground' height

[Thomas Graves]

Well?

Why in the world would anybody name anyone other than the one-and-only Oswald?

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

Funny how you issue a free pass to a government report, any government report. 

Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego.

My tests reveal a 10" distance to the ground at my height, revealing a 7" distance at Oswald's
Go ahead and call 7" an 'almost touching the ground' height

Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?

[Thomas Graves]

Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego.

Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?

Iacoletti,

Why should he post a photo when he knows you'll probably claim it was photoshopped, and/or require three notarized statements (in triplicate) and a couple of certified DNA tests?

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

See what I mean about obnoxious made-up stuff?

[Thomas Graves]

See what I mean about obnoxious made-up stuff?

Iacoletti,

Don't you remember the thread titled "What Kind Of Evidence Does Iacoletti Require?" (or some-such thing) I started about a year ago?

As I recall, you didn't contribute to it, or if you did, it was non-responsive in nature.

Why was that?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego. Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?

Point out where I'm trying to trump anybody.
My focus is on a 34.8" length
You do want the WC findings challenged, do you not?

Why would you need images from someone else* when you're perfectly capable of doing your own test?

@Especially from me, who you've called a 'bozo' and 'insane' in the past