Et tu, Bonnie?

[Bill Chapman]

Just like any investigator who wants to arrive at a predetermined conclusion

I said a possible cya motive.

[Bill Chapman]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?

Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?

[Martin Weidmann]

Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?

Can you provide a non-relative of Bledsoe to confirm she was on the bus?
Can you provide a non-relative of Roberts to confirm that she saw Oswald put on a jacket?
Can you provide a non-relative of Brennan to confirm he really saw a man looking like Oswald in the TSBD window?

And so on.....

[Colin Crow]

Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?

I take it you are suggesting Buell and Linnie May concocted a description of a bag designed to take the heat off him.

[Richard Smith]

The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt

What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....

that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length!

subjective interpretation? 

There is nothing to interpret subjectively in his actual words;

Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

And that it is therefore not an estimate.  HA HA HA.

So, measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to his cupped hand is an "estimate"? 

You are really getting desperate.... 

Btw, who said Oswald arrived at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM and left before 1PM?

A great example of what the contrarian believes is "evidence."  Keep in mind that the bag was found.  It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length.  But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him.  And  uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length. HA HA HA HA.  No one could make that sort of rabbit hole reasoning up.  Classic.

[Richard Smith]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?

"Kind of" and "sort of".  Those are fairly imprecise descriptions.  But why would it preclude CE 142 as the bag?  It seems like asking for an image of the bag prior to it being found is an impossible standard of proof since there is no such image.  But that doesn't preclude it from being the bag.  The DPD searched the bag for evidence before any image of it was taken.  The first photo shows it in a fully extended state after that search.  Not as Oswald carried it that day.  That bag clearly has fold marks on it.

[Martin Weidmann]

A great example of what the contrarian believes is "evidence."  Keep in mind that the bag was found.  It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length.  But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him.  And  uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length. HA HA HA HA.  No one could make that sort of rabbit hole reasoning up.  Classic.

You're a one trick pony who keeps going round and round making the same statements and foolish claims, hoping that some day they might convince somebody.

Keep in mind that the bag was found.

Misrepresentation of the actual facts. A bag was found and is, contrary to the evidence, assumed by you to be the bag that Oswald carried. The witnesses who actually saw Oswald's bag denied it was the bag. I take their word over yours every day.

It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length.

You can measure any bag you like, but as long as you can not prove it is the correct bag (which you can't) you've got nothing.

But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him.  And  uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length.

Relying on what a witness says is a foreign concept for you, but in the real world we have a witness who actually saw the bag and the way Oswald carried it (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit). The mere fact that you don't like to be confronted with such evidence makes no difference.

And before you forget;

What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....

Try to answer a question for once, instead of making all sorts of bogus claims

[Richard Smith]

But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him.  And  uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length.

Relying on what a witness says is a foreign concept for you, but in the real world we have a witness who actually saw the bag and the way Oswald carried it (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit). The mere fact that you don't like to be confronted with such evidence makes no difference.

And before you forget;

What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....

Try to answer a question for once, instead of making all sorts of bogus claims

I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt.  But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel.  And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle.  With no work-related purpose or explanation for that bag to be there.  No one else who worked in that building ever explained the presence of the bag in that location or claimed ownership of it.  It just magically appears there without explanation in the contrarian fantasy world.  And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance.  The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.