Frazier's rifle length estimate.

[John Iacoletti]

The Captains Contrarian are at it again.  What is being alleged?

That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.

Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar?  It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't.  We only have one photo from Randle's position.  Do you see the car?  Do you see the back door of the car?  Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?

[Tom Scully]

That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.

Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar?  It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't.  We only have one photo from Randle's position.  Do you see the car?  Do you see the back door of the car?  Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?

Objection! Precedent renders your unimpeachable assertions irrelevant. Sorry, I don't make the rules, I merely accept their constraints!

A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down…

Custer: The Legend of the Martyred Hero

[John Mytton]

That there is no evidence whatsoever that either the bag that Frazier saw or the CE142 bag ever contained the C2766 rifle or any other rifle.

Who's calling Randle a conspirator or even a liar?  It's either possible to see a car through that wall or it isn't.  We only have one photo from Randle's position.  Do you see the car?  Do you see the back door of the car?  Do you even see "Mytton's" "specular highlights"?

The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?



JohnM

[John Mytton]

The Captains Contrarian are at it again.  What is being alleged?  That Randle is making up the story for some unknown reason?  She lied about seeing Oswald place the package in the car.  These are same guys who refuse to ever acknowledge that they are claiming a conspiracy even by implication but time and again they suggest random citizens lied about what they saw.  Not just mistaken but an outright intentional lie.  The why is always left for us to ponder.  Remember is it a "small" conspiracy that simply involves everyone in Dallas.

Remember is it a "small" conspiracy that simply involves everyone in Dallas.

 

Some CT suggestions on what happened.

• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.

• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.

• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.

JohnM

[Ray Mitcham]

The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?



JohnM

What's stopping you telling us what you see through the "air", in the photo, John?

[Richard Smith]

Some CT suggestions on what happened.

• Only one guy with access to the evidence is all that is needed for a conspiracy, Iacoletti on the old forum actually suggested this.

• After the assassination they just randomly picked Oswald as a Patsy and quickly invented a ton of evidence.

• The Government controls everything therefore it doesn't matter what happened.

JohnM

The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car.  I wonder how "he" got to her so fast?  The notion that someone could control and coerce every random citizen into lying after the fact is laughable kookery.  Imagine the fantasy conspirator darting from place to place to find all these people and somehow coerce them into lying that very day.  Randle, Whaley, Brewer, Postal, all the Tippit witnesses, Brennan and on and on.  John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense.  He knows Oswald is guilty.  This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex.   And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car.  I wonder how "he" got to her so fast?  The notion that someone could control and coerce every random citizen into lying after the fact is laughable kookery.  Imagine the fantasy conspirator darting from place to place to find all these people and somehow coerce them into lying that very day.  Randle, Whaley, Brewer, Postal, all the Tippit witnesses, Brennan and on and on.  John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense.  He knows Oswald is guilty.  This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex.   And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.

I never understood how "they" (the conspirators who framed LHO) could control all of this, e.g., coerce or threaten witnesses to say what they wanted, but not have, let's say, five or six witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza state they saw Oswald shoot JFK from the sniper's nest. Why not coerce/frighten/threaten them too?

Supposedly the Tippit shooting witnesses were all manipulated into saying Oswald shot Tippit. But these powerful conspirators couldn't get witnesses to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK? I would think implicating Oswald into shooting JFK was far more critical than implicating him in shooting a DPD officer.

But the conspiracy crowd doesn't like these types of obvious questions. To be fair, if I was a conspiracy believer I'd run from them too.

[Richard Smith]

I never understood how "they" (the conspirators who framed LHO) could control all of this, e.g., coerce or threaten witnesses to say what they wanted, but not have, let's say, five or six witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza state they saw Oswald shoot JFK from the sniper's nest. Why not coerce/frighten/threaten them too?

Supposedly the Tippit shooting witnesses were all manipulated into saying Oswald shot Tippit. But these powerful conspirators couldn't get witnesses to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK? I would think implicating Oswald into shooting JFK was far more critical than implicating him in shooting a DPD officer.

But the conspiracy crowd doesn't like these types of obvious questions. To be fair, if I was a conspiracy believer I'd run from them too.

Yes, it doesn't have to make any sense.  It just has to explain away the evidence against Oswald.  There are lots of classic examples.  Like coercing Frazier to lie about Oswald carrying a long package that was not his lunch but being unable to coerce him into confirming that it was long enough to contain the rifle.   The entire purpose from a conspirator's point of view to place a long package in Oswald's possession that day.