The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt suggests here that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length! And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA. That is comedy gold.
The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guiltWhat "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....
that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length!subjective interpretation?
There is nothing to interpret subjectively in his actual words;
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA. So, measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to his cupped hand is an "estimate"?
You are really getting desperate....
Btw, who said Oswald arrived at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM and left before 1PM?