Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

One assumes there were curtain rods in the bag. Buell did.
Oswald told him, so it must be true.

It doesn't matter what one assumes was in the bag, nor does it matter what Oswald told Frazier.

The bag is only significant to the case if it was used to conceal a broken down MC rifle and, beyond speculation, there is no evidence for that.

It's a feasibility study involving Oswald using his left hand to pull the top of the bag to his left—in front of his head— to reduce the bag profile to anyone behind him. Kind of like carrying the bag at his side earlier when nobody was behind him.   

Oswald had no reason to "reduce the bag profile to anyone behind him". The only person behind him was Frazier and he had seen the package (and thus it's size) well before their arrival at the TSBD.

Frazier told us how Oswald carried the bag and there is no way that he could have carried a bag containing a broken down rifle in that way.

[Bill Chapman]

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

[Walt Cakebread]

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

I don't know what transpired in Frazier's car that rainy morning.... But I do know that Buell is on record as identifying the brown paper from which the sack was constructed as "FLIMSY light weight paper"....   So, Based on that information, I believe it's highly probable that the sack was starting to deteriorate when Lee placed it on the seat of Fraziers car..... Thus when Lee retrieved the wet sack from Frazier's car he placed it in the palm of his hand and tucked it beneath his arm to protect it from the rain.   But by the time he reached the TSBd the sack was falling apart, so he simply put his sandwich and apple in his jacket pocket and tossed the wet sack aside.
 
Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

[Martin Weidmann]

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Said the guy who, for complete lack of knowledge, only speculates, provides no evidence to prove anything, and lacks any credibility to be believed on anything.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Which all favors the package being too short to conceal a broken down MC rifle, exactly as Buell Frazier is still saying to this day and nobody has even come close to prove him wrong.

I bet you can't even explain how any of this can justify the conclusion that the bag was really long enough to conceal the MC rifle.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Sure. The bag can be reduced in size, but a rifle can't.

[Walt Cakebread]

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Why are you attacking Tony Fratini.....  He hasn't posted anything in a couple of years.....But when he posted,  a reader could accept nearly anything he posted, as factual information.   You Mr Chapped man are the antithesis of Toni Fratini....  I know of no one who accepts anything that you post.   

[Alan Ford]

VERSUS


 

Once again one is struck by the downright uncanny similarity between the size estimate given by Mr Frazier and his sister (27 inches) and the length of the curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage (27.5 inches). Curtain rods come in lots of different sizes, yet Mr Frazier and his sister managed to get this just right. No fluke!

[Bill Chapman]

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Why are you attacking Tony Fratini.....  He hasn't posted anything in a couple of years.....But when he posted,  a reader could accept nearly anything he posted, as factual information.   You Mr Chapped man are the antithesis of Toni Fratini....  I know of no one who accepts anything that you post.

I'm not attacking Fratini, merely pointing out where he used the photos of the bag which showed the bag empty and flattened on the table, unfolded. BTW, he and I exchanged a number of PMs and I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

[Walt Cakebread]

I'm not attacking Fratini, merely pointing out where he used the photos of the bag which showed the bag empty and flattened on the table, unfolded. BTW, he and I exchanged a number of PMs and I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

I too exchanged private PMs with Tony....   But when he suddenly stopped posting, I was concerned that his health was failing, but I didn't want to pry.  Can you shed any light on what happened to Tony?