Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Richard Smith]

And there is the other zealot jumping in like a monkey doing tricks.... 

Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt.

Which only tells me that you haven't been paying attention.

How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package?  Something you appear to accept as a fact.  Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?

There it is again, another loaded question. Nobody mentioned "how Oswald carried his bag". Frazier, on day 1, denied, while being polygraphed, that the bag found at the TSBD wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry and his sister backed him up.

You have gone on and on and on about how Oswald carried the bag to prove that it could not be long enough to have contained the rifle.  Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?

[Martin Weidmann]

You have gone on and on and on about how Oswald carried the bag to prove that it could not be long enough to have contained the rifle.  Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?

Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?

Did anyone "corroborate" the way Dan Rather carried the package, as you have claimed as an absolute fact?

Corroboration for Frazier's description comes from his sister who saw Oswald carry the package, holding the top in his hand and not touching the ground at the other end. The dimensions are similar and if the package had been longer, as in the Dan Rather video, Randle would have seen it touch the ground, which of course she didn't.

[Richard Smith]

Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?

Did anyone "corroborate" the way Dan Rather carried the package, as you have claimed as an absolute fact?

Corroboration for Frazier's description comes from his sister who saw Oswald carry the package, holding the top in his hand and not touching the ground at the other end. The dimensions are similar and if the package had been longer, as in the Dan Rather video, Randle would have seen it touch the ground, which of course she didn't.

Frazier's sister saw Oswald carry the package into the TSBD as Frazier described? 

[Martin Weidmann]

Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long. And only later magically changed her testimony to it being 27 inches to match Fraziers testimony exactly. The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.

Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long.

That's what the FBI agent wrote in his 302 report. Randle never saw or signed that report and there is no way of knowing for sure that's what she said. 302 reports are internal documents in which agents can write whatever they please. There is no evidentary value to them.

To illustrate; there are two 302 reports about the paper bag that was allegedly used to bring the rifle to the TSBD. One said there was a match with TSBD paper and the other said there wasn't!

The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.

But why would they lie about the size of the bag? Do you believe that they knew straight away that the police thought Oswald brought in the gun in a paper bag which was found at the TSBD? How would they have such knowledge within hours after the assassination?

[Martin Weidmann]

Frazier's sister saw Oswald carry the package into the TSBD as Frazier described?

Get back to me when you have finished playing silly games

[Gerry Down]

That's what the FBI agent wrote in his 302 report. Randle never saw or signed that report and there is no way of knowing for sure that's what she said. 302 reports are internal documents in which agents can write whatever they please. There is no evidentary value to them.

To illustrate; there are two 302 reports about the paper bag that was allegedly used to bring the rifle to the TSBD. One said there was a match with TSBD paper and the other said there wasn't!

Well i don't know. Any mention at all of the bag being 3 feet long seems to weakens the case. It would have been nice to get John McAdams take on this. He was always very good at straightening things out.

[Bill Chapman]

'Pathetic'
Is that from your 'conversational' counter-narrative file?

'As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless'
Feel free to squint. Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.


Earlene Roberts: Blind as a bat, except for the glasses 

'There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like'
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit. Seems whatever time was available was all it took for Earlene to observe that Oswald was zipping up a jacket.

'But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.'
> Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.

[Martin Weidmann]

'Pathetic'
Is that from your 'conversational' counter-narrative file?

'As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless'
Feel free to squint. Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.


Earlene Roberts: Blind as a bat, except for the glasses 

'There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like'
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit. Seems whatever time was available was all it took for Earlene to observe that Oswald was zipping up a jacket.

'But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.'
Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.

Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.

Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong.

There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit.

Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal.

Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.

Visit the rooming house and you will know.