All good questions, John. Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.
Providing an "answer" that you cannot support with reliable evidence is storytelling. Your story doesn't just automatically win by default.
If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.
Why, when you cannot do that with regard to Oswald? It's
your claim -- you support it.
Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not?
I believe he said fire escape. But you can't just assume that he could see the back of the building during any possible time that either A&S or an assassin was exiting the building. We don't know when or how the assassin left.
Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly .
Talk about a circular argument. That's the whole point. Garner would have seen Oswald if he came down during the time frame that he needed to have come down -- if he was up there in the first place. So would Adams and Styles. None of them saw or heard anybody.
Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.
That tells us exactly nothing about how long the package was.
What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.
Are you calling Frazier a liar? Interesting. Then you don't get to use anything else he said about curtain rods, or lunch, or anything else.
Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.
It's called making the evidence fit the narrative.
