Et tu, Bonnie?

[Richard Smith]

So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?

Fool. I have never alleged anything of the kind. It is just a pathetic strawman that you keep using. One doesn't need to estimate a size of a bag, when one sees the bag being carried in the cup of a hand and under an armpit. All you need to do is measure the length of the arm!

That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.

Before 1PM? I agree... at 1PM, sure he can.

He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.

Who says he left before 1PM?

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. 

[Martin Weidmann]

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 guilt

What "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?

[Bill Chapman]

I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:

As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.

In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".

In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots -  "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.

This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:

"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."


You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?

Oswald Arse-Kissers: Still grasping at straws after all these years.

[Bill Chapman]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Anyone want to present any photo of CE142 that would be consistent with this description?

Does anyone want to point out that the driver of the car containing the eventual killer to the scene of the crime can potentially get the same sentence as said killer?

[Colin Crow]

Does anyone want to point out that the driver of the car containing the eventual killer to the scene of the crime can potentially get the same sentence as said killer?

Didn’t expect you to provide anything that related to the question. Anyone else? Show evidence that the bag taken into evidence was folded in the way Frazier described.

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald Arse-Kissers: Still grasping at straws after all these years.

Explain this post

[Dan O'meara]

Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?

It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination. Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence. The more selective an interpretation is, the more irrelevant it becomes.

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)

"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"

Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.

"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

What reasoning?

"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."

That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.

"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.

Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

[Martin Weidmann]

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)

"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"

Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.

"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

What reasoning?

"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."

That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.

"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.

Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward

Why should I take the trouble to argue with you about your interpretation of merely a part of the evidence?

I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

Frazier's WC testimony was months after the fact. Inbetween the assassination and his testimony he was questioned by all sorts of investigators. You take none of that into account.

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?

There is no credible argument to counter and as far as critique goes, I have already presented it. You are way too selective in what you want to use to support your argument.

And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

Upset? Why would I be upset when somebody exposes the weakness of his case by throwing a pathetic insult around and now does it again?