Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package. So unless you begin with the premise that Oswald lied it doesn't really matter what Frazier said. To cling to Frazier's estimate as being absolutely precise entails needing to explain why Oswald denied carrying any such package. If it didn't contain the rifle because it was too short per Frazier, then why does Oswald lie about it? This where the kooks stick their head in the sand and make claims like there is no recording of the Oswald's interrogation. The old impossible standard of proof trick where any evidence they can't rebut is rejected as the product of lies or fakery - but without any evidence of such. The great circle of lunacy that allows them to make an allegation, not support it with any logical explanation, and then wave away evidence to the contrary as a product of the frame up.
So desperate to fit a broken down rifle into a bag that's too small, when they can't even get beyond
assuming that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 and/or that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD.
And then he calls people who question his assumptions "kooks".... Too funny.
This where the kooks stick their head in the sand and make claims like there is no recording of the Oswald's interrogation. The old impossible standard of proof trick where any evidence they can't rebut is rejected as the product of lies or fakery - but without any evidence of such. As usual, you've got it backwards. When you claim Oswald said something during interrogation, you should be able to back it up. That's not an impossible standard of proof. Insisting that we should believe anything an interrogator tells us, is wanting to do away with any standard of proof. There is no evidence to rebut or reject. All there is are some reports written a week after the fact which contain conflicting information on some points. On proper cross-examination by an able defense lawyer those interrogators would be destroyed in an instance.
