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.