Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.
You're trying to be clever so you "declare" I'm doing something that I'm not. What I've done is to consider the various ways that Lee Oswald could have carried his long package: The ways that are consistent with Buell Frazier's description of how he saw Oswald carry the long package. It's not a predetermined outcome. My analysis of Buell Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the long package is that his observation is not complete enough to reach a certain conclusion. The witness's testimony is inconclusive. However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative: particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag.
You're trying to be clever so you "declare" I'm doing something that I'm not. What I've done is to consider the various ways that Lee Oswald could have carried his long package: The ways that are consistent with Buell Frazier's description of how he saw Oswald carry the long package. It's not a predetermined outcome. My analysis of Buell Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the long package is that his observation is not complete enough to reach a certain conclusion. The witness's testimony is inconclusive.Of course it is a pre-determined outcome as you are working towards the conclusion that what Frazier said wasn't conclusive when in actual fact it was. He told us how Oswald carried the package and that he did not see any package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder.
However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative: particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag. It is at best only probative for the fact that Oswald touched that bag at some point. A bag, made from TSBD materials, found at the TSBD with more prints on them, which they couldn't identify (thus leaving open the possibility that others touched the bag also), for which there is not a shred of evidence it ever left the TSBD. And, a bag, I should add, which was shown to Frazier on Friday evening and he denied was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. Before you start using terms as probative, you might want to do some more research.....
No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.
Did you spot the fault in this Meros guy's "it-could-only-be-one-way" theory. He got something fundamental--wrong. Not surprising for someone who refuses to look at "all" the possibilities as to how Oswald carried the long paper-sack.
There was no fault in Meros' video because he let Frazier tell his story. Period. You are in no position to determine if Meros got anything wrong and there is no need to look at all the possibilities how Oswald could have carried the paper bag when in fact you've got the only man in the world who actually saw Oswald carry the bag telling you what he saw.
The entire "look at other possibilities" is designed for one reason only; to find a way to say that Frazier got it wrong. That's it and don't pretend otherwise because you would only be making a fool of yourself and you've already done that enough times.
Frazier may not have said "he thought" but an estimate of length is "a thought" and an incomplete observation of Oswald's body from "all sides" as he carried the package is "a thought" not a proof.
When Frazier never used the word "thought" (and he didn't) you are putting words in his mouth. And you can stop going on about this "estimate" crap because Frazier clearly told us the package fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit. In other words, it was not longer than his arm. That's not an estimate, it's a sound observation. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your biased agenda.
Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.
Then don't bother to reply to my posts.
You're frustrated because you've come up against someone who wont capitulate to your contrarianism.
As long as you keep spreading falsehoods and misrepresentations, I will call you out on them. And btw, there is no need for me to get frustrated. You are way to insignificant to me for that. And you don't have to capitulate (whatever the hell that means) to me either. Just convince me that you are right by presenting factual, sound and conclusive arguments instead of stubbornly repeating the same hollow unsupported claims over and over again.
The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.
There are many differences between Buell Frazier and me. You must be more precise in your writing before you POST.
You're unable or unwilling to consider the multiple ways the package could have been carried "consistent" with Buell Frazier's observation.
You ignore the F A C T that Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long paper bag with a ruler or tape-measure. This is not in dispute by any rational person.
Did Buell Frazier ever measure the length between Lee Oswald's "cupped hand" and "inside his armpit"? No he did not: So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
You must be more precise in thoughts and conclusions. It will save both of us wasted time.
And there he goes again, condescending as always and full of sh*t. What I do not ignore is that the only witness who actually saw the package being carried by Oswald has been telling us all his life how Oswald carried it. There is only one way the package could have been carried consistent with Frazier's observation and that is how it was carried. Period.
Unlike you I don't need to invent reasons to doubt his testimony and repeating your lame arguments to discredit Frazier doesn't make them come true.
But let me ask you this question; When you have first hand testimony from the only person who actually saw how Oswald carried package, and he tells you exactly how the package was carried, what possible reason would there be to look for other ways he could have carried the package?
