Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Not-to-mention that poor little angel Oswald was the only person on Planet Earth who was on scene & accounted for during both murders.

Your conclusion notwithstanding, it still remains to be seen if that's even true.

[Bill Chapman]

Total BS. It's somewhat pathetic that you desperately want to cling to one vague description by Randle while at the same time ignoring the fact that Buell Frazier not only had a far better view of the package but also describes perfectly how he saw Oswald carry the package (in the cup of his hand and under the shoulder) as well as the - for you - devastating fact that on Friday evening, only hours after the event, Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the paper bag "found" at the TSBD and he instantly dismissed it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry, causing a massive panic at the DPD with Lt Day struggling to come up with a completely bogus 2 bag theory and Fritz trying to pressure Frazier to sign a pre-written confession.

The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle concealed in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning. There never was any such evidence and, regardless of your speculation, there never will be.

What is it that prevents you from understanding that some paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, by itself, is of no relevance whatsoever, unless it can be demonstrated that that bag actually ever contained a broken down MC rifle. Without that, all you've got is an insignificant piece of paper, allegedly found at a location (without a in situ photo to prove it) by somebody (nobody knows exactly who, as there are several claims made about that) and massive speculation.

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Here. I have this model Bullworker (since I was a kid) and it measures exactly 34.6", close enough to the claimed 34.8" for accuracy. Also 8" wide Starbucks bags can be combined to mimic the bag. (Buell claimed the bag was only 5-6" wide, but I'll show some largesse by handicapping that). Get an accurate tool.. and some exercise as well.

And no that's not me in the photo.

[Bill Chapman]

Some folks simply don't understand that proposing a theory about how an event happened, and then working with the evidence and eyewitness accounts, to prove or disprove that theory is SOP in solving crimes.

That's not the way you couch it. That's why Iacoletti owns you.

I will note, however, that at times you do sound reasonable.
But that's only when you're in your LNer mode

[Martin Weidmann]

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Here. I have this model Bullworker (since I was a kid) and it measures exactly 34.6", close enough to the claimed 34.8" for accuracy. Also 8" wide Starbucks bags can be combined to mimic the bag. (Buell claimed the bag was only 5-6" wide, but I'll show some largesse by handicapping that). Get an accurate tool.. and some exercise as well.

And no that's not me in the photo.

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

That's not how it works, spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains! It doesn't matter one bit if a broken down rifle could be carried protruding outward in such a way that somebody behind could not see it. Of course it could. But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!

Frazier described the package, as being too short to conceal a broken down rifle, and he told us exactly how he saw Oswald carry it. If you want to claim that the package was long enough to conceal a broken down rifle and that it was carried in a way that Frazier, standing behind Oswald, could not see it, you need to prove it.

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us all the evidence for your infantile claim or STFU and stop wasting everybody's time!

[Alan Ford]

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Ditch the word salad, Mr Chapman, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that the 15th of the month comes AFTER the 23rd of the month, and the 24th of the month comes BEFORE the 23rd of the month--------------



 

[Bill Chapman]

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

That's not how it works, spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains! It doesn't matter one bit if a broken down rifle could be carried protruding outward in such a way that somebody behind could not see it. Of course it could. But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!

Frazier described the package, as being too short to conceal a broken down rifle, and he told us exactly how he saw Oswald carry it. If you want to claim that the package was long enough to conceal a broken down rifle and that it was carried in a way that Frazier, standing behind Oswald, could not see it, you need to prove it.

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us all the evidence for your infantile claim or STFU and stop wasting everybody's time!

But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?

[Bill Chapman]

Ditch the word salad, Mr Chapman, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that the 15th of the month comes AFTER the 23rd of the month, and the 24th of the month comes BEFORE the 23rd of the month--------------



 

You've bailed I see. Not so confident in Meros now?
I guess you've finally read Buell's wc testimony

[Martin Weidmann]

But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?

If that wasn't the reason for bringing it up, why bring it up at all?

I'm glad you agree. I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it. So, that's the "Oswald brought the MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag" theory out the window 

Btw I hope this is not too much word salad for you to handle.... What exactly is the cut off point where you start to struggle with the content? 10 words perhaps, or is it a few more? Just let me know, and I'll see if I can help.