Andrej Stancak

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I based what I saw in Altgens 6 on the material in the photo and not some derived model interpreting what I believe to be there or want to be there.  This image is to bizarre to comment on and in no way depicts what is shown in Altgens 6..

This image is a 3D reconstruction of the doorway scene. Why would it be so bizarre? How else if not through the presence of a person standing behind Lovelady can you explain the bright oval object next to Lovelady face? And if you agree that the object was a partial face, there are only two candidate persons: Sarah Stanton and Pauline Sanders. The image you find bizarre refers to the preferred solution having Sarah Stanton as the person standing in the space between Shelley and Lovelady. Not sure why do you find it bizarre.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

At the AP or back in Dallas and re-transmitted.  However it was done, Altgens 6 is a fraud with way to many noticeable alterations that have been argued about for years.

John:

I analysed Altgens6, at least the critical section of the doorway, for a long period of time. Initially, I was also tempted to interpret any intriguing aspect of Lovelady's figure as an alteration. However, when you think there was tampering with a photograph, you need to employ more questioning and testing: could a particular feature which looks so strange be actually explained naturally? I hope I was able to explain every single aspect of Altgens6 doorway in my 3D reconstruction of Algens6 as being natural and unaltered.

If you have any doubts about Altgens6, please describe them step by step using a high-quality version of Altgens6 and please test alternative explanations before jumping to the simple conclusion of Altgens6 being altered. 

Here is a link to my Atgens6 video once again in case you have missed it.

Jonathan:

Tom had the best copy of Mary Moorman's picture (made from a negative which FBI took from a fresh Mary Moorman's picture) and the best quality Fox pictures related to President's autopsy (possibly from Dr Wecht). Tom received images to analyse from Oliver Stone and Oliver Stone had access to superb copies of many JFKA images. I am not sure about the backyard pictures, however, those were given to Tom by Jack White and they surely were the best pictures of that sort available. Tom did some very initial analyses (in 1988) on pictures he made from video tapes, however, later he had access to high-quality copies of JFKA pictures. He was very much aware about the necessity to use good copies of images for his analysis.

14 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Please find here Tom Wilson's analysis of the 133-B backyard photograph from the book A Deeper, Darker Truth by Don Phillips. 

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

As has been discussed on numerous prior threads here, the photo enhancements Wilson claims to have been able to produce have never been peer-reviewed and are outlandish beyond belief.

Actually, I work on reviving Tom's image analysis method for almost two years. From what I was able to understand and see so far,  Tom's findings cannot be dismissed as outlandish. Tom was quite far ahead of time in subsurface image analysis but, unfortunately, he did not leave any systematic and full documentation of his methods. This makes it a real challenge.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's important to remember that Lifton wasn't just saying that the body was tampered with in some way before the autopsy. His theory claimed that the body was altered in a specific way for a specific purpose.

Jeremy:

I think that here lies the problem. Lifton's theory says that the body was altered, especially the head and the neck. This is the essence and the novelty of the theory. Other elements in Best Evidence are hypotheses and explanations and these, therefore, do not refute the basic fact that the head and neck were altered. Doug Horne added one more alteration which was not described in Best Evidence, namely that later, after the official autopsy was finished and after Dr Humes called Dr Perry (about 2305), Dr Humes took a probe and forced a passage from the back wound (which was considered by Humes to be a non-penetrating wound during the period of official autopsy)  to the the front neck wound. This extra alteration does not refute Lifton's theory even if it was never mentioned in Best Evidence.

Even if President was shot from the back, and it is very likely he was (it would be difficult to introduce a wound in the back postmortem because every pathologist immediately recognises, according to the presence of vital signs, whether a wound was caused while a person was alive or dead), this does not refute the alterations made to the neck and head. The sole purpose of these illegal alterations was to obliterate any wounds caused by shots from the front.  This is how I understand Best Evidence. 

Whether the alterations were made by Dr Humes or somebody else, in Bethesda or somewhere else, before 7PM or after 7PM, whether there was an extra shot from behind of Kennedy, these aspects have no bearings to the validity of Lifton's conclusions (the body of President Kennedy was altered prior to the autopsy).

If President was also shot from behind and the non-penetrating back wound would be related to that shot, the wound (or its description in the autopsy report) was changed to a penetrating wound and this is fully in line with Best Evidence: the front-back trajectories were suppressed and the back-front trajectories were enhanced.

Thanks for taking time to respond to my post.

All the people listed in previous posts deserve credit for their contributions. The list is desperately incomplete but I take is as an opportunity to express our appreciation to these researchers. Some of the missed ones are well-known (Joseph McBride,  Dick Russell, Josiah Thompson,  Barry Ernest, Tom Wilson, James Douglas, Noel Twyman) and some perhaps less famous but they gave it all (e.g., Larry Harris).

I would not call them heroes of JFK research though. These people followed their calling and accomplished a lot. However, none of them needed to demonstrate the kind of heroism that Roger Craig had to. While many deserve credit, the real hero was Roger Craig who put his job, health and maybe even life on the altar of JFKA case. Heroism is not measured by number of pages written or conferences attended even if these measures can be useful for giving credit to individual researchers.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

"They stole JFK's body from Air Force One and nobody noticed? Get outta here! Is that what these people believe? They're all tin-foil hat crazies!"

Jeremy:

I wonder where does your aversion to David Lifton's Best Evidence comes from?

There are two layers of information in every research: 1) A layer of facts and evidence. 2) A layer of interpretations of the facts. You seem to question the interpretation part of Best Evidence and while this is all right if a reasonable and maybe even better interpretation can be suggested, a change in interpretation of evidence does not disprove Layer 1 - the facts and evidence.

Layer 1: Best Evidence is a fact-based book. It contains accurate data, those which are accessible to every researcher and can easily be verified, but especially those which are based on a number of interviews carried by David Lifton. It is well documented with footnotes and references. But there is something better than saying that the book provides wealth of novel data: the later independent research of medical evidence conducted by several researchers fully confirmed the data presented in Best Evidence, and the novel data, such as extended interview with the mortician Tom Robinson (ARRB) or the report of Sgt. Roger Boyajian (ARRB), are in full accord with Best Evidence findings of a surgery to the head (discovered by Lifton in Sibert and O'Neil's November 26, 1963 report) or an early arrival of a black ambulance (hearse?) with President's body at 1835. There is no better validation of a theory than that subsequently and independently acquired new data fit the data on which a theory has been based.

Layer 2: We do not know exactly how and when and by whom the surgery to the head and neck had been carried out. Data allow an informed guess and by applying logical thinking and by eliminating certain improbable alternatives, one can suggest the most plausible interpretation of events. This is the process of "connecting the dots". Every author has the right and is actually expected to suggest an interpretation of findings. David Lifton saw in 1981 and still appears to see it in a way which assumes that the body had to be taken out from the bronze casket during the swearing in of Lyndon B. Johnson. However, there is no witness testimony or a late confession that would confirm this scenario. Also, David Lifton believes that Commander Humes was not the one performing the illegal surgery to President's head while Doug Horne, using the same data as David Lifton, seems to believe that the surgeries were performed by Humes. The interpretations, connecting the dots, may be different but the data presented in Best Evidence stand.

So, if you would like to question the facts and evidence, please say which piece of data in David Lifton's book is invalid. If you like to dismiss Best Evidence based on Layer 2 information, this misses the target  because every author is entitled to provide an interpretation of how events unfolded. The scenario can be discussed, improved or even changed if new data becomes available but it does not disprove the essence - data in Layer 1 and the conclusion that President's body had been altered before the start of the official autopsy.

Debates and disputes require tolerance and graciousness toward opponents and their work else a discussion comes to a halt.

I find merit in the possibility that President's body was not in the bronze casket already when it was loaded on AF1. The point is that the casket weighed 200 kg (about 400 pounds) without any body in it, and 280 kg with President's body. It puzzles me how could only two SS agents in the front of the casket could carry the casket while holding it with one hand only (at least the agent I see on the left side of the casket) and stepping up the stairs.

In Andrews airport, a forklift was called to handle the casket. There is a phenomenon in experimental psychology known as Weber-Fechner law which says that one can perceive an increment in some physical feature (e.g., weight) more finely if the basal intensity of that feature is low compared to high. For instance, President's body would be perceived as a big increment of weight of load if the casket would be the plain shipping casket weighing about 50 kg but it would be perceived less as a weight increment  if the casket were heavy, such as the bronze casket.

That said, I have no further data in support of the possibility that President's body was not in the casket when loaded on AF1.   

Dennis:

there was a surgery to John Kennedy's head, namely the top of the head, which was reported by Commander Humes at the start of the autopsy (0800) and recorded by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil. Besides their statement in their November 26 report, there is a comparatively new testimony of Dr James Jenkins corroborating David's finding of a surgery to President's head prior to the autopsy. As documented in Best Evidence and  mentioned by other researchers, there was a staggering difference between the wounds as described by all of Parkland doctors and nurses who saw Kennedy's head wound and Dr Boswell's chart of the head wound and the official autopsy protocol (and the autopsy photograph showing the back of Kennedy head intact) which do not show any wound in the occipital region. These pieces of evidence are enough to accept the basic premise of Best Evidence that President Kennedy's body was tampered with to obfuscate or even suppress the occipital wound.

I may have slight doubts about the  interpretation of the back wound and while finding good logic in BE hypothesis that the perpetrators of illegal surgery did not know about the entry wound in the throat, this my doubt is about one of possible scenarios but it does not question the presence of a pre-autopsy surgery to the head and neck. 

It is very simple: if President was shot at least once from the front, the autopsy findings should show evidence of a frontal shot but they do not. However, there was at least one frontal shot (e.g., HSCA acoustic evidence) and therefore if the autopsy report does not show it, it worked with an altered  body. This is the minimum what Best Evidence says. Later analyses of X-rays (Dr Mantik) and photographs (Tom Wilson) clearly demonstrated the presence of manipulations in the right occipital and posterior parietal region suggesting additional photographic alterations to suppress the occipital head wound.

Is this not enough of best evidence?

I have no doubts that President's body, the throat and the cranium, were tampered with after the body left Dallas Parkland hospital. David's research described in Best Evidence was revolutionary then and it is very actual today.

It comes  to me as a logical assumption that whoever carried out the illegal surgeries to President's body had to have a good idea where the bullets were. Could there be a preliminary inspection of the body by a confederate amongst Parkland doctors who then advised others on what the challenges were? Could this happen aboard of AF2 if the body were there? It also appears obvious that those performing the surgeries to remove the bullets and to obfuscate the wound in the right occipital area of the skull needed to have one or more X-ray images in their hands. I cannot see how anyone would just roam the upper chest and brain through the wounds without knowing the locations of the bullets to be removed. This would mean that alterations occurred in two stages, a preliminary professional account of surface wounds (but a better and more detailed account than the accounts provided by Parkland doctors to the press and public) and an X-ray navigated removal of bullets. AF2/Parkland >Walter Reed hospital?  

John:

Mrs Stanton was leaning forwards and that is the reason for not seeing her body in the the area behind Lovelady's left arm. Should Mrs Stanton not be leaning forwards, she would be touching one or both men and her face would be positioned higher than the bright object.

I see no alterations in Lovelady's figure including his head in Altgens6 such as a "mask" superimposed on Lovelady's head. A low-resolution Altgens6 such as the one shown in your picture would hardly allow to reconstruct Altgens6 correctly. This was the reason for analysing the version bearing the white inscription with Robert Groden's name because this version offers the best details in human figures. Groden's version of Altgens6 has an interesting history: Barry Ernest interviewed Gary Mack many years ago. Gary Mack conferred to Barry that Robert Groden had access to the original Altgens6' negative and was able to enhance it using his original "variable density cynexing" method. 

I had to superimpose this version of Altgens6 onto a version which I bought from The Associated Press because Groden's version only showed a small (but important) part of the doorway and merging this small picture with the 3D model would be impossible.

This is the quote from Barry Ernest's book, The Girl on the Stairs, location 4443 in the Kindle edition: 

“Most researchers have heard the name Robert Groden. No question that he is a pro-conspiracy guy. Groden did something that no one else was able to do when he worked for the House Assassinations Committee. He and I have been acquainted since ’77 or ’78. Groden got access to the original negative of that [Altgens] photograph and he made blowups of that for the House Committee and the photo panel and the photo panel couldn’t really tell the pattern of the shirt either, so they made their own blowups and again, they were not able to make the image clear enough to be able to tell. The negative went back to Groden and he tried a different technique and he had a name for it. He called it ‘variable density cynexing.’ I have no idea what the hell that means. But he claimed it was a technique that was able to ‘strengthen the contrast,’ that is what he said, so that he could see the pattern in the shirt. And of course when you are looking at a black-and-white reproduction of a colored object, the tonal value tends to shift; you’re not really sure what you’re looking at."

Ernest, Barry. The Girl on the Stairs . Pelican Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Back in March 2018, I promised to provide data to support the possibility that the bright oval shape next to Lovelady's face in Altgens6  (shown as red-delineated object in the picture above) could be the partial face of Mrs Sarah Stanton who had just happened to stand in the space separating Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley.  I have launched a Youtube video that explains all the steps in my analysis and the results. The video can be also viewed from a broader perspective as a 3D reconstruction of the Depository doorway in Altgens6.

Here is the link to the video:

https://youtu.be/C0Hwt-cIGq4

I recommend watching this video in HD (please click on the small cog-like symbol in the lower right corner of the video screen for settings and select the highest resolution - HD).

Let me point out the main findings presented in the video. First, the 3D model shows that there was enough space between Lovelady and Shelley to accommodate another person. This space has been estimated to be about 1' 8'' wide.

The heads of Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley were modeled as accurately as possible and that allowed to determine the patches in Altgens6 that belonged neither to Lovelady nor to Shelley and therefore, the patches belonged to another person standing between them. The patch above Lovelady's right shoulder was analysed in detail and reasons for considering it to be the partial right shoulder of a person standing behind Lovelady are explained in the video. Lovelady's figure received a really detailed treatment and I hope that issues which have been previously considered alterations to Altgens6, such as the presence of a dark "V" on Lovelady's neck, can now be explained naturally.

This figure shows in yellow what the 3D model and visual analysis of Altgens6 suggested as belonging to the person standing on the top landing between Lovelady and Shelley. The "liberal" solution includes a patch to the right of Lovelady's head what could be the back of another person's head. I understand that not everyone would accept this clue because of a very low signal in that area of Altgens6. However, after fitting Mrs Stanton's figure into the doorway, the back of her head has indeed turned up in that area and matched this weak clue.

And here is the final solution of Altgens6 with Mrs Stanton on board. It still appears interesting to me, after spending long time on this project, that a large lady she was, Mrs Stanton, could stand in the doorway in such a way that only very small parts of her head and right shoulder can be seen in Altgens6, and even those parts are difficult to separate from Lovelady's and Shelley's figures without properly reconstructing the doorway and its occupants.

A view of the doorway from a different perspective than Altgens' perspective shows how could Mrs Stanton stand on the top landing without giving any strong clues about her presence in Altgens6.

The video also checks the possibility that another lady who had reported to stand on the top landing, Mrs Pauline Sanders, could account for the bright spot next to Lovelady's head. Data suggest that this was unlikely to be the case. It is of importance that the proposed solution of the Altgens6 doorway matches the witness testimonies well. Taken the testimonies and this reconstruction of Altgens6 doorway together, there is a strong case, in my opinion, for the presence of Mrs Stanton on the top landing in the space between Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.

This video concludes my Altgens6 project.

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

  Here's one of my covers of a song from that album, about Dylan's tour of Mississippi with Pete Seeger during the Civil Rights era-- Mississippi.

https://www.soundclick.com/music/songInfo.cfm?songID=13466275

 

What an excellent remake of Dylan's song. Hat off to you, sir.

"... business is business and it's a murder most foul..."

Thanks, Myra, much appreciated.

Bob Dylan's song is very moving and brilliant. Thanks for posting. I hope to read the transcript of the lyrics when available.

Steve:

you are right, Jack Revill was only a member of the investigatory team, not a supervisor. 

Steve:

you raised some good points.

The City Manager leaving his office in the time of crisis is difficult to understand but it could happen. If it did happen, Crull had his reasons - recall, David Ferrie also had reasons to be be on a geese hunting trip just hours after assassination. If he had left the town on the 23rd, he still may have advised Chief Curry, via phone call to Earle Cabell or someone else, to transfer Oswald in the presence of cameras and newsmen, and he left to wash his hands from what would follow. However, I believe it was Cabell who suggested to Chief Curry the public transfer of Lee Oswald. 

Interestingly, Elgin Crull suggested that the officer who was supposed to provide protection for Earle Cabell during his trip to Washington, DC to attend the funeral, was ...  Lt. Jack Revill, the most conspiratorial officer according to Sylvia Meagher. Cabell and Crull clearly trusted Jack Revill and had plenty opportunities to be informed by Revill about what was going on in the Department. Crull did not ask Chief Curry whom Curry would recommend for Cabell's protection, Crull picked up an officer beforehand. Later, it was Jack Revill who supervised the Police Department investigation in Ruby's killing of Oswald. 

It is highly unlikely that a phone call between Cabell and Curry during the 48 hours of assassination would not mention Lee Oswald and/or his transfer at all, but there you have it, Cabell denied it.

I view the phone call between Cabell and Curry at the time of Lee Oswald's transfer differently: Cabell wanted to distract Curry from taking any leading role in the transfer in the critical moments. Chief Curry was Cabell's puppet, not a close confidante. Cabell operated through other high officers in Dallas Police than Chief Curry. It was Cabell and Crull who prevented Curry to transfer Oswald to the jail in secrecy during the night.  

This is from my article on Earle Cabell, in preparation:

"Sergeant Stavis Ellis from the Dallas Police Department conferred that Chief Curry has initially intended to transfer Oswald secretly with a handful of officers at 2AM. After Oswald’s death, on Sunday evening, Chief Curry told Sergeant Ellis that the city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell have called him and insisted on the transfer in front of the cameras and newsmen  . The difference between Curry’s original plan and the plan imposed on Chief Curry by Mayor Earle Cabell and the city manager was the difference between having Lee Harvey Oswald alive and talking or having Oswald dead and silenced forever.

Chuck:

you are very right on Earle Cabell's involvement with the CIA as their asset. I believe it was related to his engagement in anti-communist propaganda. Earle Cabell would deserve a special thread as his role in the assassination and cover-up is grossly underestimated. However, this is how he played his game - he was in the background but every decision he made served the plot and the cover-up. He was rewarded for his service in Dallas during and after the assassination by Johnson with a nomination for running for a Congress and he quit as Mayor of Dallas already in February 1964. One of his areas of activity was a congressional supervision of the NASA. NASA was the place where Charles Cabell went after he was kicked off from the CIA. Was not NASA the venue for several Reily company employees after the assassination? There are also reports (Alba, New Orleans) that Lee Oswald thought of finding a pot of gold in NASA. 

Steve, this is very interesting. These associations were the likely fungus of the assassination plot, the deep politics of Texas.

On 3/16/2020 at 4:21 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Another aspect of Ruby was his going to the radio station owned by McLendon(?), who was  friends with DAP, right after the assassination- could that be where Ruby took direction from (re: killing LHO)?

There are interesting associations along the lines Earle Cabell - McLendon - Connally - DPD - and ... Ruby. Earle Cabell was the executive committee member of the Texas Law Enforcement Foundations in which John Connally served as the President for a period of time. The Texas Law Enforcement Foundation organised seminars with prominent judges and police officer to design new strategies for tackling crime in Texas. In a way, it was a parallel of the Citizen Council within the law enforcement - a group of wealthy and influential persons saying to judges and Police what what they should do. 

Gordon McLendon was part of the Foundation and had  therefore good links with the law enforcement in Texas as the two documents obtained from DeGolyer Library, SMU, show.

Now, Earle Cabell appeared to be associated with the infamous ZuRoMa club in Dallas which was discovered by the author Mark North in his book: “Betrayal in Dallas” (2013). Earle Cabell together with the District Attorney Henry Wade and Sheriff Bill Decker visited the (Anonymous) ZuRoMa Club in Dallas. Cabell was allegedly a frequent guest to the ZuRoMa Club, as was the U.S. attorney to Dallas, Barefoot Sanders. ZuRoMa Club was organised by the chief Italian-American Mafia figures in Dallas Joe Civello and Joe and Sam Campisi. Their associates in Dallas were mobsters John Eli Stone, Phil Bosco, Joe and Frank Ianni, Sam Savalli, and brothers Isadore and Dave Miller. These people ran gambling and narcotics operations in Dallas in close collaboration with New Orleans Mafia led by Carlos Marcello. Narcotics were supplied to Dallas from Mexico by Paul Mondoloni’s family. Importantly, Sam Campisi and Dave Miller were close confidantes of Jack Ruby. Dave Miller colluded with Ruby in bookmaking operations; Ruby directed the guests of his Carousel club to Dave Miller if they wished to place their bets. The bets were conveyed by the higher-order Mafiosi Phil Bosco and John Eli Stone. In spite of available data on Dallas Mafia and their associations with high ranking law enforcement officers and political figures in Dallas, Warren Commission chose to ignore the obvious links between Jack Ruby and the Dallas criminal underground. Given Earle Cabell’s associations with Dallas ZuRoMa club, it is not surprising that Earle Cabell had admitted his awareness of Jack Ruby prior to the assassination of President Kennedy in his testimony for the Warren Commission.  ZuRoMa Club was never raided by the Vice section of the Dallas Police Department. The Dallas Police Department had at least one representative in ZuRoMa Club, Officer Charles J. Sansone from the Auto Theft unit. 

I study the profile of Earle Cabell for some time as I believe he was the liaison between the big arm of the assassination (CIA, Johnson) and the local right-wing elements represented in Dallas police (e.g., Lt. Revill or Assistant Chief Bachelor).

It all happened more than 56 years ago and so many things have changed since. It is difficult to evaluate the witness testimonies through the eyes of someone living in 2020. For instance, what were the usual paper sacks used in grocery stores in 1960'?

This is what Mr Frazier claimed:

Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.
Mr. BALL - Was there anything more said about the paper sack on the way into town?

And this is what Lee Oswald told the interrogators, via the report of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes:

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

I did some search of contemporary 1960' grocery sacks. They would fit the height of about 2 feet, but perhaps a bit shorter - my estimate of the package carried as described by Mr Frazier was 21'' and it appears entirely possible that the grocery sacks in 1960' actually measured about 20''. Consumers could also have small sacks like the ones placed on the till.

The problem was the width of the package. Mr Frazier had it 5-6'' while the grocery sacks were much wider than this, about 2/3 of a foot. Could Lee carry a grocery sack folded along the height of the sack? 

I would question the 26-inch length of the package which seems to be shorter compared to what Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle told the Waren Commission but still miles (5 inch at least) longer compared to the size of object which Lee was supposed to carry in the cupped hand and stuck in his armpit. In my opinion, the size of 27-28 inch was a prepared give-away to law enforcement to allow them to think it was a rifle in the package while providing enough plausible denial for Buell Wesley Frazier (the package was too short to contain a rifle so please do not associate me with any rifle).

The picture below shows how a package 27 x 5 inch would look like if carried by a person of Lee Oswald's body height in a way described by Mr Frazier. I have the mannequin raised his extended arm for better visualisation of the armpit area. The grey rods would be curtain rods of 32'' length.

Of course, I have tried carrying objects of different lengths in  armpit-cupped hand style and could confirm the model prediction.

Either was the package 21'' (or even shorter if Lee wore a jacket) or it was longer than 21'' but carried in a different way than described by Mr Frazier.