A straight line

[John Iacoletti]

Cite

You accused me of calling every WC witness a liar.  You accused me of using the term "random guy" to refer to the shooter.  You accused me of claiming that "the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket".  You accused me of "stating the facts as lies". 

Every time I ask you for a cite for one of these doozies, you go strangely silent.

[Bill Chapman]

Great.  Then Frazier saw a 2 foot long bag that was not CE 142, and Roger Craig saw a Mauser.

And that Buell wasn't paying attention. And that years later said he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove the (still-prime-and-only) suspect to work. And agreed with Bug that a longer bag could could have been carried in such a way as to escape his attention.

And Craig's sister who said her brother Roger had mental issues all his life.

But of course you are here to explain what these people really meant.

[John Iacoletti]

And that Buell wasn't paying attention. And that years later said he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove the (still-prime-and-only) suspect to work. And agreed with Bug that a longer bag could could have been carried in such a way as to escape his attention.

And Craig's sister who said her brother Roger had mental issues all his life.

But of course you are here to explain what these people really meant.

But of course, you get to speak for Frazier and for Dougherty and for Craig and his sister (not to mention speaking for Oswald all the time), because . . . reasons.

[Bill Chapman]

But of course, you get to speak for Frazier and for Dougherty and for Craig and his sister (not to mention speaking for Oswald all the time), because . . . reasons.

Prime example: You just said that Buell saw a 2 foot bag, and conveniently ignored the other factors that I mention.

[John Iacoletti]

Prime example: You just said that Buell saw a 2 foot bag, and conveniently ignored the other factors that I mention.

What other factors?  Just that he didn't pay much attention?  I didn't ignore that, that's just an excuse to disregard multiple pieces of converging evidence.  Both Frazier and Randle said the bag was about 2 feet long.  Both said that CE142 was not the same bag.  Dougherty said Oswald was empty handed when he entered the shipping room door.  CE142 was not photographed in situ and the accounts of where, when, how it was found and what it looked like differ.  There's no evidence of a rifle ever having been in it, and even CE 142 was too short to contain the rifle -- hence another excuse with absolutely no evidence to support it:  the rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.

[Jack Trojan]

The rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.

Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.

[Andrew Mason]

Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.

There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:



There were also indications of fingerprints on the trigger but they were not sufficient for identification. 

[John Iacoletti]

There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:

Actually it was a print that just turned up in Washington a week later on an index card purporting to have been lifted from the gun barrel.