Then went inside with the curtain rods

[John Iacoletti]

No 45-degree angle necessary

It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.

[Bill Chapman]

It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.

Where did I say anything about the package necessarily needing to be seen over the shoulder? Where do you get 38"?

[John Iacoletti]

Where did I say anything about the package necessarily needing to be seen over the shoulder?

 

You didn't, because you're ignorant about the case.  But Frazier did.  And by that, I mean Buell Frazier.  Not that "other Frazier" who you think interrogated him.

[Bill Chapman]

You didn't, because you're ignorant about the case.  But Frazier did.  And by that, I mean Buell Frazier.  Not that "other Frazier" who you think interrogated him.

I know Fritz interrogated (and threatened) Buell.
What makes you think I don't know that.
 


Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

[Bill Chapman]

It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.

your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands"
>> That's Buell's quote, so stop trying to make it look like I said that, L'll Tex.

[Walt Cakebread]

I know Fritz interrogated (and threatened) Buell.
What makes you think I don't know that.
 


Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

HUH??    I can't understand you?....  Would you please explain WHY Lee would want to hide the paper sack from Buell Frazier's view?   Frazier had seen the sack when he climbed into the drivers seat of his car, and he saw Lee take the sack out of the car when Lee got out to walk to the TSBD.    Since Frazier knew that Lee was carrying a paper sack.....WHY would Lee want to carry it in a manner that you believe was meant to hide it from  Frazier's view.

 

[Richard Smith]

Just more contrarian rabbit hole nonsense.  There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.  All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.  There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.  Frazier sees Oswald take it with him from the car and walk toward the building.  Frazier is following him and sees Oswald go in the door.  At no point does Frazier see Oswald discard his package (and why would he do that if it had his lunch, curtain rods or whatever he might be carrying in the opinion of these loons?).  Nor does Frazier come across any discarded package even though he is just a few seconds behind Oswald in walking the same route to the building and entering by the same door.  This kind of laughable, pedantic analysis of a simple event is absurd.

[Martin Weidmann]

Just more contrarian rabbit hole nonsense.  There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.  All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.  There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.  Frazier sees Oswald take it with him from the car and walk toward the building.  Frazier is following him and sees Oswald go in the door.  At no point does Frazier see Oswald discard his package (and why would he do that if it had his lunch, curtain rods or whatever he might be carrying in the opinion of these loons?).  Nor does Frazier come across any discarded package even though he is just a few seconds behind Oswald in walking the same route to the building and entering by the same door.  This kind of laughable, pedantic analysis of a simple event is absurd.

For somebody who is complaining about "laughable, pedantic analysis" you sure as hell are using a massive amount of speculation about what Frazier might or might not have seen.

There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.

But there is plenty of doubt about the size of the package.

All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.

It is in fact crucial, because if the package was concealing a broken down rifle and Oswald carried it as Frazier said he did, the package would have reached over Oswald's shoulder and the end would be next to his ear. So, the only ones who are trying to create doubt about what Frazier said are the LNs, who claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the package protruded outward

There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.

To simpletons like you, maybe...