I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.
I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately. Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious? Only you know of your true motivation.
I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.
Nice, but I still don't understand what any of that had to do with Oswald's bag in the sniper's nest?
I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately
So my post about what I believe your comments on CE142 in the sniper's nest leads to, is an attempt to discredit your posts on the forum in general, seriously? Get a grip, this sort of gross exaggeration is of the same type of nonsense that Fratini used to pull and led to him leaving.
Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious?
Yeah, can you.
Here's a quick summary of the evidence.
Frazier saw a long bag that he didn't particularly pay attention to.
Frazier said that Oswald told him that the bag contained curtain rods.
Oswald said the bag contained his lunch.
Frazier said the bag was put on the back seat.
Oswald said that his package was on his lap because even Oswald realizes that putting his lunch on the back seat is not that believable.
The folded, crumpled and stained bag that is discovered neatly fits Oswald's broken down rifle.
The bag has multiple prints from Oswald.
The bag was seen in the sniper's nest by multiple police officers.
Only you know of your true motivation.
You just have to look at my history of posting and see that I exclusively use the evidence or make logical inferences based on the evidence whereas others here seem to have an agenda.
JohnM