Then went inside with the curtain rods

[John Iacoletti]

In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.

You're mistaking "speculation" for "investigation".

[John Iacoletti]

I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law

Informed people discuss the case and the evidence.  Ignorant people get the details wrong, play word games, post movie clips, and try to act clever while never saying anything relevant.

[John Iacoletti]

Name a few wild claims

Here's another one:

Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

Yet another one:

Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.

[John Iacoletti]

and another:

Tell us what would motivate someone to use the autistic Jack Dougherty as an assassin in the first place. Or even a deranged loser like Oswald. Or yet another deranged loser in the person of one Jack Ruby.

[John Iacoletti]

The hits just keep on coming.  The question is, when doesn't Chapman make wild claims?

Says the guy who sticks up for Charlie Manson.
Who's next? Richard Kuklinski?

[Alan Ford]

The hits just keep on coming.  The question is, when doesn't Chapman make wild claims?

When he's breaking personal confidences re. deceased spouses

[Bill Chapman]

That's not me asking you to prove it. It is me concluding that you can not prove it.

Run boy, run as fast as you can. Your claim that Oswald brought a broken down MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag is bogus unless you can prove it. It seems you can't prove it, so the conclusion that your claim is bogus is justified.

You seem to get tied up in your web of misrepresentations, bogus tales and bold statements (implied or otherwise) that you can't back up with evidence.

What the hell are you doing? Do you think before you write? First of all, by running away you've already shown us all that your claim that Oswald took a rifle to the TBSB is bogus, because you can't back it up with evidence. Yet here you are, trying to cast doubt on the size of the bag. And you're doing it rather stupidly, by first claiming that Frazier only saw that back "at a glance" (apparently intended to suggest that he didn't see it well enough to determine it's size) and then following it up with the claim that Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded, which of course means that he did get a good look at the bag after all. After such a glaring contradiction, I'd say we can ignore all your opinions about Oswald's intend and Frazier's honesty.

Great... back to square one. Present the evidence for that claim or be branded a liar who makes up "evidence" whenever he needs it.

Your star witness got a good look at a shortened bag. Saw even less of the bag while being left in the dust by the speeding Oswald.

Now let's see why Oswald's lunch would need to be palmed and shoved into an armpit.