Frazier's rifle length estimate.

[John Iacoletti]

The slats were open, what stopped Linnie Mae from seeing through air?

I'm not sure what you think a moving film taken from a different vantage point proves about what Randle could see.

[John Iacoletti]

The one guy responsible for controlling all the evidence must have really been on the ball since Randle confirmed in her 11.22 affidavit that she saw Oswald put the package in the car.  I wonder how "he" got to her so fast?

Sorry, is this supposed to prove that Oswald shot somebody?

John doesn't really believe any of that nonsense.  He knows Oswald is guilty.  This is just a contrarian game to offset some type of insecurity complex.   And the best way to get attention is to suggest false doubt like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty.

How utterly arrogant.  "Richard" doesn't really believe any of his strawman nonsense.  He knows that there isn't enough evidence to prove that Oswald did it, so he makes up complex strawman vast conspiracies to ridicule instead of actually addressing the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, it doesn't have to make any sense.  It just has to explain away the evidence against Oswald.  There are lots of classic examples.  Like coercing Frazier to lie about Oswald carrying a long package that was not his lunch but being unable to coerce him into confirming that it was long enough to contain the rifle.   The entire purpose from a conspirator's point of view to place a long package in Oswald's possession that day.

Yet another "Richard" strawman.  Who said Frazier was coerced to lie about Oswald carrying a package?  On the contrary -- he was unsuccessfully coerced to try to get him to agree that CE 142 was that bag.  He was also unsuccessfully coerced into confessing by a hamfisted police captain.

[Richard Smith]

Either Oswald lied or Frazier lied about the bag.  So which is it?  Frazier said Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Frazier indicated he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he did not carry it that day.  Oswald indicated that he carried no long bag but only his lunch sack.  So is Oswald the liar?  If so, why would Oswald lie about carrying a long bag that morning if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods that would assist in exonerating him?  If Frazier is the liar, then he must be doing so for some reason.  If it is to frame Oswald for the assassination, then it makes no sense for him to say Oswald carried a long bag but then refuse to confirm that it was long enough to contain the rifle.  The entire purpose from a frame up perspective is to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. 

[John Iacoletti]

Either Oswald lied or Frazier lied about the bag.  So which is it?  Frazier said Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.

How would Frazier know what was in the bag?

  Frazier indicated he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he did not carry it that day.  Oswald indicated that he carried no long bag but only his lunch sack.

Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag.  That's "Richard" misinformation.

  So is Oswald the liar?  If so, why would Oswald lie about carrying a long bag that morning if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods that would assist in exonerating him?

Since when are rhetorical questions evidence of anything?

Your "either Oswald lied, or Frazier lied" is a false dichotomy.  Frazier could have misremembered.  Oswald's exact words could have been misremembered.  Oswald could have been lying to Frazier about the curtain rods because he didn't want to air his marital squabbles.  Frazier could have lied about the curtain rods because he was being threatened by Fritz.  Who knows?  Regardless of any of these possibilities, that doesn't somehow put a rifle in that bag or in any other bag, nor does it put Oswald in a window shooting at the motorcade.  It's just a weak attempt to make evidence out of rhetoric.

[John Mytton]

I'm not sure what you think a moving film taken from a different vantage point proves about what Randle could see.

Duh!

The film proves that the wall was made of slats.
The film shows the angle of the slats.
The film shows that between the slats was nothing but clean fresh air.



Which when combined with the WC exhibit proves beyond all doubt that there was nothing obstructing Linnie from being able to see through the slats.

JohnM 

[John Mytton]

How would Frazier know what was in the bag?

Nobody reported Oswald saying that he carried no long bag.  That's "Richard" misinformation.

Since when are rhetorical questions evidence of anything?

Your "either Oswald lied, or Frazier lied" is a false dichotomy.  Frazier could have misremembered.  Oswald's exact words could have been misremembered.  Oswald could have been lying to Frazier about the curtain rods because he didn't want to air his marital squabbles.  Frazier could have lied about the curtain rods because he was being threatened by Fritz.  Who knows?  Regardless of any of these possibilities, that doesn't somehow put a rifle in that bag or in any other bag, nor does it put Oswald in a window shooting at the motorcade.  It's just a weak attempt to make evidence out of rhetoric.

"misremembered" LOL.

Oswald came home specifically for the first time ever mid week and told Frazier that he was getting curtain rods for his apartment.
Frazier sees Oswald's rifle package on the back seat of his car and wonders how the hell they got there and Oswald says that was the curtain rods.
Frazier sees Oswald walk away with a long package cupped in his hand.

And you reckon later that same day that Frazier could have misremembered multiple variety of specific unique connected events? Hahaha.

The inescapable fact is that eyewitnesses saw Oswald either put a long package in or take a long package out of the back of Frazier's cart and Oswald obviously knowing that putting his lunch on the backseat was absurd, lies and says his lunch stayed with him on his lap.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

The film proves that the wall was made of slats.
The film shows the angle of the slats.
The film shows that between the slats was nothing but clean fresh air.

What the film doesn't show is that LMR could even see a car through that wall much less somebody putting something in the back seat.



"specular highlights".  LOL.