The Shot Sequence: Evidence of a Second Gunman

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I’ll just address the curtain rod issue from the standpoint of logic. In my experience, Lone Nutters don’t ignore or dismiss the problematical points you’ve made but simply attempt to reason to the hypothesis that best explains all the available data (i.e., to “reason to the best explanation”). Conspiracy folks often seem to me to be interested only in finding a hypothesis consistent with a conspiratorial explanation, which often causes them to attach the greatest weight to the weakest evidence.

•    I take it as established that the rifle found on the sixth floor was ordered and received by LHO, at least dry-fired by LHO and photographed with LHO, and was the source of all identifiable fragments; it was his rifle. Some CTers will, of course, dispute every one of these points, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

•    For some reason, LHO chose to go Ruth’s home on a Thursday for the first time ever, even though Ruth and Marina weren’t expecting him and Marina wasn’t eager to see him.

•    LHO told Frazier he wanted to get curtain rods. If this were true, would going to Ruth’s home have been a likely way to get curtain rods? Do we have any reason to think he knew there were curtain rods in Ruth’s garage or that they would be available to him? Does this level of concern about curtain rods seem consistent with what we know of LHO’s personality?

•    LHO said nothing to Ruth or Marina about wanting curtain rods. Does this not seem odd?

•    Instead, according to CT lore, LHO snuck into Ruth’s garage and stole the curtain rods. Does this seem likely, particularly on a visit where he was trying to reconcile with Marina? In the morning. he left his wedding ring and most of his cash - odd, no?

•    The next morning, Linnie Mae Randle glanced out her window and observed LHO carrying a package that she estimated at around two feet (I believe she said 28” at one point). In short, he was carrying something noticeable.

•    LHO placed the package in the back seat of Frazier’s car. When Frazier asked him about it, he reminded Frazier it was curtain rods.

•    Frazier said he observed LHO (from a fair distance) walking toward the TSBD with the package tucked under his armpit. This would not be possible with a disassembled Carcano. On the other hand, my Ping putter is exactly the same length; when I walk with it cupped in my hand, it doesn’t protrude above my shoulder or anywhere near it.

•    Jack Dougherty, whom CTers regard as mentally deficient when they don’t like what he says, said he didn’t observe LHO carrying anything into the TSBD. Perhaps he really didn’t.

•    LHO said during interviews that he brought his lunch in a paper bag. Yes, sure, it might’ve been in a large grocery sack. Does this seem plausible? Why would he lie about this, knowing he'd told Frazier about curtain rods? Possibly because there were no curtain rods but there certainly was a rifle?

•    LHO said during interviews that Frazier was mistaken if he thought LHO said anything about curtain rods. Pretty clearly, LHO was lying. Why would he lie about such a minor point?

•    LHO said during interviews that he owned no rifle. Again, he was lying - preposterously so.

•    No curtain rods were found in the TSBD. No grocery bag or other brown-paper wrapping other than the wrapping associated with the rifle was found.

•    When Ruth recollected that there actually were curtain rods in her garage, they were still there.

•    Marina knew LHO’s rifle was wrapped in a blanket in Ruth’s garage. When she took the officers to the garage on the day of the assassination, the blanket still had the imprint of the rifle.

•    There is some account of LHO telling fellow passengers on an elevator that his package was a fishing rod, but I can’t recall the specifics so we’ll let it go.

•    CTers have to believe that, notwithstanding all of the foregoing, LHO's rifle somehow found its way from Ruth's garage to the sixth floor on the morning of the assassination without Ruth, Marina or LHO knowing anything about it. Who would’ve known the rifle was wrapped in a blanket in Ruth’s garage? Who would’ve undertaken all this risk, and for what purpose? Why would they have taken the trouble to stash the rifle in the stairwell? Is it plausible LHO’s trip on Thursday to get curtain rods was pure coincidence to all of this surreptitious rifle stealing and planting?

•    Add it all together, and I believe the inference to the best explanation is that LHO retrieved his rifle from Ruth’s garage and managed to get it into the TSBD at some point on the morning of the assassination. I don’t need to know exactly how or when; he had all morning. I believe the best explanation of the “problems” is that Randle and Frazier were simply mistaken about the length of the package, which they observed only casually and with no reason to care about the precise length. I believe Frazier was simply mistaken about the package being tucked under LHO’s armpit.

•    To infer a conspiratorial explanation seems to me to involve the acceptance of implausibilities at every stage.

(The above is off the top of my head from memory. If something is flat wrong, feel free to correct it.)

That's a fine presentation of what amounts to "no conspiracy" thinking on this issue. 

But there is a hole in it, yes?

The rifle is presumed to have been taken from the Paine's garage on the morning of the shooting wrapped in paper Oswald brought home on the 21st. 

Only...

The WC had no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage in the weeks before the shooting. It was believed to have been there. But no one saw it there. And the blanket it was once enclosed in looked undisturbed. That's a problem. It could have been taken from the unlocked garage sometime over the previous weeks. 

Still, assuming it was there on the morning of the 22nd, the WC had no evidence indicating Oswald brought paper home on the 21st. Frazier insists this did not happen. That's a problem. 

Still, assuming he was mistaken, the WC had no evidence Oswald went out in the garage to wrap the rifle. It was a tiny house in which the movements of its occupants would be apparent to others. And yet, no one saw Oswald go out in the garage to wrap up the rifle. Mrs. Paine assumed he'd done so based upon a light being turned on in the garage. But there were a number of other people in the house, including herself and Marina, who could have left this light on. No one even asked the children if they'd been out in the garage. So, this is a problem.

Still, assuming he snuck out to the garage without anyone's noticing, he had to get the rifle to the depository. And yet, both Frazier and his sister insisted the package they saw was too small to have held a rifle. Well, this is huge problem. 

But let's say he did. Then there's the problem of the DPD's supposed discovery of this package in a central location after going unnoticed by all those to first discover the sniper's nest. This is another huge problem. 

So... There are a number of holes in this story. And yet, even so, most LNs will state it as a fact that Oswald smuggled the rifle into the depository in a bag made from paper brought out to Irving on the 21st, and that Frazier and his sister were mistaken as to the size of the package they saw in Oswald's possession. This is sloppy thinking, at best. There are a number of ways the rifle could have made it into the depository. One should not be forced to follow the WC's thinking on this issue. So many maybes and could have's are required that one can invent a story from whole cloth that would make as much sense.

Here's let's try. Oswald had a friend he never mentioned named Bruno. Bruno came out to the Paine's residence in the middle of the night disguised as Santa Claus in case anyone saw him. Oswald snuck out into the garage while everyone else was sleeping and handed Bruno the rifle. Bruno then took the rifle to the TSBD and snuck in while a security guard was inspecting a light that had been left on. After the shooting, Bruno hid on the seventh floor disguised as a Dallas Police officer. He ran down after the shots and escaped out the back door without anyone's noticing.

Now, that is 100% fantasy. But there is no proof this did not happen. 

So...is it easier to believe a story for which there is no proof, or a story for which much of the evidence runs counter to the story?

CTs would say the former. LNs would say the latter. Why? How is that more logical? 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

It seems to me the conspiracy community in general relies on weak explanations of the physical evidence, implausible inferences and skewed logic. Nothing is what seems, everything is faked, everyone is lying. As I do, they then tend to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who fit into the framework they've constructed. You and others will obviously disagree, but I simply don't find the conspiracy framework to be anywhere near as solid as the lone assassin framework.

 

You are confusing the investigative process of a conspiracist to that of a crime investigator. A crime investigator takes evidence at face value whereas a conspiracist has to judge which pieces of evidence can be trusted. (There are ways to do this.)

Since you are unaware of these things, you can't recognize a conspiracy that's staring you in the face. And it appears to you that conspiracists rely on weak explanations of the physical evidence, implausible inferences, and skewed logic. You wrongly believe that, to conspiracists, nothing is what it seems, everything is faked, and everyone is lying.

 

[Guest]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

The rifle is presumed to have been taken from the Paine's garage on the morning of the shooting wrapped in paper Oswald brought home on the 21st. 

Only...

The WC had no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage in the weeks before the shooting. It was believed to have been there. But no one saw it there. And the blanket it was once enclosed in looked undisturbed. That's a problem. It could have been taken from the unlocked garage sometime over the previous weeks. 

Still, assuming it was there on the morning of the 22nd, the WC had no evidence indicating Oswald brought paper home on the 21st. Frazier insists this did not happen. That's a problem. 

Still, assuming he was mistaken, the WC had no evidence Oswald went out in the garage to wrap the rifle. It was a tiny house in which the movements of its occupants would be apparent to others. And yet, no one saw Oswald go out in the garage to wrap up the rifle. Mrs. Paine assumed he'd done so based upon a light being turned on in the garage. But there were a number of other people in the house, including herself and Marina, who could have left this light on. No one even asked the children if they'd been out in the garage. So, this is a problem.

Still, assuming he snuck out to the garage without anyone's noticing, he had to get the rifle to the depository. And yet, both Frazier and his sister insisted the package they saw was too small to have held a rifle. Well, this is huge problem. 

But let's say he did. Then there's the problem of the DPD's supposed discovery of this package in a central location after going unnoticed by all those to first discover the sniper's nest. This is another huge problem. 

So... There are a number of holes in this story. And yet, even so, most LNs will state it as a fact that Oswald smuggled the rifle into the depository in a bag made from paper brought out to Irving on the 21st, and that Frazier and his sister were mistaken as to the size of the package they saw in Oswald's possession. This is sloppy thinking, at best. There are a number of ways the rifle could have made it into the depository. One should not be forced to follow the WC's thinking on this issue. So many maybes and could have's are required that one can invent a story from whole cloth that would make as much sense.

Here's let's try. Oswald had a friend he never mentioned named Bruno. Bruno came out to the Paine's residence in the middle of the night disguised as Santa Claus in case anyone saw him. Oswald snuck out into the garage while everyone else was sleeping and handed Bruno the rifle. Bruno then took the rifle to the TSBD and snuck in while a security guard was inspecting a light that had been left on. After the shooting, Bruno hid on the seventh floor disguised as a Dallas Police officer. He ran down after the shots and escaped out the back door without anyone's noticing.

Now, that is 100% fantasy. But there is no proof this did not happen. 

So...is it easier to believe a story for which there is no proof, or a story for which much of the evidence runs counter to the story?

CTs would say the former. LNs would say the latter. Why? How is that more logical? 

 

 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Did you know that in the "real world" the rifle tests proved that the Depository rifle was not accurate enough to be the murder weapon ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" Cmdr. James Humes moved the "back wound" up to the base of the neck ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" Doctors are not harrassed to change their opinions of wounds ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" police employees are not used in police lineups ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" FBI reports don't lie about what the witnesses said ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/proof-fbi-lied.mp4

 

Did you know that in the "real world" witnesses are not ignored by Federal Investigations ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4

 

yada yada indeed

 

Like  👍

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The WC had no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage in the weeks before the shooting. It was believed to have been there. But no one saw it there.

Why are you saying "no one saw it there", Pat? Marina saw the rifle in the Paine garage, sometime in late September. She testified about seeing it in the blanket:

"There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." (WC Testimony of Marina Oswald)

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And the blanket it was once enclosed in looked undisturbed. That's a problem.

I think Oswald, after removing the rifle from the blanket, probably arranged the empty blanket in such a way to make it appear (as much as he could) that the gun was still inside the blanket. Not a difficult task really.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Still, assuming it was there on the morning of the 22nd, the WC had no evidence indicating Oswald brought paper home on the 21st. Frazier insists this did not happen. That's a problem. 

I think Oswald made an effort to try and conceal the paper from Frazier.

Does anybody have any idea how big the pockets were in the blue jacket that Oswald wore to work on Nov. 22 (which is, I would assume, the same jacket he wore to Irving on 11/21)? And were there any pockets on the inside of that jacket?

The answers to those questions might prove quite useful indeed.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Still, assuming he was mistaken, the WC had no evidence Oswald went out in the garage to wrap the rifle. It was a tiny house in which the movements of its occupants would be apparent to others. And yet, no one saw Oswald go out in the garage to wrap up the rifle. Mrs. Paine assumed he'd done so based upon a light being turned on in the garage. But there were a number of other people in the house, including herself and Marina, who could have left this light on. No one even asked the children if they'd been out in the garage. So, this is a problem.

Well, nobody saw Oswald get up on Friday morning either.

And, as far as I know, nobody saw (or heard) LHO make himself that cup of instant coffee in Ruth Paine's kitchen on Friday morning either.

And nobody (AFAIK) saw or heard Lee physically leave the Paine house either.

And he surely was making some sound (noise) when he did all of those things on Friday morning that nobody saw or heard.

And that's probably because everybody in the house was asleep at that hour. Which might very well be the answer to this "problem", Pat:

Lee Oswald could very well have been smart enough to wait until early Friday morning to go into the garage to wrap up the rifle. But Lee could have possibly constructed (i.e., taped together) the paper gun case the previous day before he ever left the Book Depository, which would mean he wouldn't have needed to spend nearly as much time sneaking around the Paine garage handling and taping together the crinkly paper package. That task could have been performed on Nov. 21 while he was still at work in Dallas.

Via the above scenario, of course, it would mean that it probably wasn't Lee who left the light on in the garage at all. Like Pat Speer said above, there were, indeed, multiple other candidates who could have conceivably left that garage light burning on the evening of 11/21.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Still, assuming he snuck out to the garage without anyone's noticing, he had to get the rifle to the depository. And yet, both Frazier and his sister insisted the package they saw was too small to have held a rifle. Well, this is huge problem. 

But the fact is: LHO did definitely carry a long-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22. That fact is beyond debate, unless CTers are willing to call both Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle li@rs (which many CTers now do).

And there just happens to be a 38-inch empty paper sack (CE142) in the evidence pile connected to the JFK investigation. And that bag has two of LHO's prints on it. More fake evidence? Most CTers seem to think so.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But let's say he did. Then there's the problem of the DPD's supposed discovery of this package in a central location after going unnoticed by all those to first discover the sniper's nest. This is another huge problem. 

But there are about a half-dozen DPD officers who DID testify that they saw the empty brown bag in the Sniper's Nest. So, to me, that's a "huge problem" for the CTers who try to exonerate Oswald.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So... There are a number of holes in this story. And yet, even so, most LNs will state it as a fact that Oswald smuggled the rifle into the depository in a bag made from paper brought out to Irving on the 21st, and that Frazier and his sister were mistaken as to the size of the package they saw in Oswald's possession. This is sloppy thinking, at best. There are a number of ways the rifle could have made it into the depository. One should not be forced to follow the WC's thinking on this issue. So many maybes and could have's are required that one can invent a story from whole cloth that would make as much sense.

Here's let's try. Oswald had a friend he never mentioned named Bruno. Bruno came out to the Paine's residence in the middle of the night disguised as Santa Claus in case anyone saw him. Oswald snuck out into the garage while everyone else was sleeping and handed Bruno the rifle. Bruno then took the rifle to the TSBD and snuck in while a security guard was inspecting a light that had been left on. After the shooting, Bruno hid on the seventh floor disguised as a Dallas Police officer. He ran down after the shots and escaped out the back door without anyone's noticing.

Now, that is 100% fantasy. But there is no proof this did not happen. 

So...is it easier to believe a story for which there is no proof, or a story for which much of the evidence runs counter to the story?

CTs would say the former. LNs would say the latter. Why? How is that more logical? 

In every murder case, there are invariably some things that don't quite "add up". But if Oswald really took a SHORTER bag into the TSBD (as claimed by Linnie and Buell), then where did THAT bag disappear to? Why wasn't a 27-inch bag found instead of that 38-inch bag?

And if LHO really did take some curtain rods into the TSBD, then where did those things go?

Do conspiracy theorists really believe that some curtain rods were found later in the Depository, despite Roy Truly's statement in CE2640?

In my opinion, the "Conspiracy" version of the JFK assassination is filled with ten times more holes than the "Lone Assassin" version of that same event.

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In my opinion, the "Conspiracy" version of the JFK assassination is filled with ten times more holes than the "Lone Assassin" version of that same event.

 

But David, explain this. This thread is about the shot sequence. Here is an earnest, firsthand witness who contradicts himself very clearly. You can't mistake the certainty about his recollection nor the problem with it that he's not aware of. He alludes to a mystery but seems to favor the WR.

 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In every murder case, there are invariably some things that don't quite "add up". But if Oswald really took a SHORTER bag into the TSBD (as claimed by Linnie and Buell), then where did THAT bag disappear to? Why wasn't a 27-inch bag found instead of that 38-inch bag?

And if LHO really did take some curtain rods into the TSBD, then where did those things go?

Do conspiracy theorists really believe that some curtain rods were found later in the Depository, despite Roy Truly's statement in CE2640?

In my opinion, the "Conspiracy" version of the JFK assassination is filled with ten times more holes than the "Lone Assassin" version of that same event.

 

Because at no point in the mind of the LN supporter does their assumption of the unreliability of Randle and Frazier allow that fallibility to swing the other way.

That if they were so far off in their description of the bag as you need them to be, then that inaccuracy is just as likely to have been that the bag was much shorter than they said and indeed just a lunch bag. (or the size they said but simply contained something smaller) In which case it would merely be an old brown paper lunch bag and if DPD found none of those in the trash that day, it would only confirm that they weren't looking very hard, or simply not looking for that item as part of the search.

Remember that almost every line of questioning about that package was about ITS size, not the size of its contents. Big bag can hold smaller item, small bag can't hold bigger item without some of it sticking out.

So it is actually far more credible that the bag contained food and ended up in the trash, rather than a broken down sniper rifle that left no trace evidence of its presence. 

And I'm not saying any of that was the case, by the way. I don't believe that it was; just throwing your own argument about the reliability of those two witnesses back at you. If you consider Randle and Frazier unreliable, then you have to accept that that unreliability works both ways. 

Imagine taking all your arguments about the Frazier/Randle descriptions of a package containing a rifle and substitute "rifle" for the word "apple." Apple will come out as a more realistic conclusion, and even more so if we throw a sandwich in the mix. You see, by saying that the bag contained a rifle you assign an automatic level of unreliability to them... "Apple" merely takes that exact same level of unreliability you assume, and makes it work WITH the same package size as they described!

Edited January 1, 2023 by Tommy Tomlinson
Edited to correct typos not substance

[Guest]

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Tommy Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Oswald's lunch? Then why did Randle say in her own handwriting that she saw LHO carrying a "long brown package" [Statement by Linnie Mae Randle] - Page 1 of 4 - The Portal to Texas History (unt.edu)? The way LHO was carrying it, she told the WC, "it almost touched the ground" {Warren Commission, Volume II: Linnie Mae Randle (history-matters.com). Why did Frazier accept Oswald's explanation the package contained curtain rods? Is it plausible Oswald walked ahead of Frazier with one end of his "lunch" cupped in his hand and the other end seeming to be under his armpit?

Oswald said he brought and ate his lunch for obvious reasons. He knew there were no curtain rods to be found. He knew there was a rifle and bag to be found. His lunch would've plausibly disappeared when eaten and any brown bag in the trash would've serve as the one he'd supposedly brought. It was a clumsy, off-the-cuff lie that wouldn't withstand scrutiny for a hour, but he told a number of them that day.

 

If it seems implausible to you, then just imagine this... "Frazier got it wrong because he wasn't paying proper attention!"

That IS the "go to" cornerstone of the argument for people explaining how Oswald carried a rifle to work, right? That's what you say when we say, "The package wasn't big enough to fit a rifle..." you say "Frazier and Randle must have got it wrong..."

Now you say the bag was too big for a sandwich? I'm confused... was he right after all? But your whole argument hangs on him being wrong?

You think he was wrong, right? You think he got the size of the package wrong?

So show me why it is MORE realistic that he got it wrong by completely re-imagining the size of a package that contained a rifle, despite seeing it in three frames of reference including REALLY familiar ones like the back seat of his own car, and the distance between a human hand and a human armpit... rather than getting the size right for a bag that could have contained lunch instead of curtain rods.

How is your rifle theory MORE realistic than the notion of a lunch bag? 

 

I can use EVERY argument the LN'ers have ever made about Frazier and Randle to show that the bag was just as likely to contain an apple as it was a rifle. The difference is that the apple can also fit in the bag they described! The Rifle can't!

And just so we're clear. I don't care whether it contained curtain rods or a PB&J and fruit. My point remains, the evidence does not support a Rifle being carried to work by Lee Harvey Oswald that morning. Unless you pick and choose which bits of evidence you like, and dismiss the bits you don't. And if you are going to do that you need to show a better reason than "the only way my theory works is if the witness was right about this and this, but wrong about that and that."

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:35 AM, Tommy Tomlinson said:

 

If it seems implausible to you, then just imagine this... "Frazier got it wrong because he wasn't paying proper attention!"

That IS the "go to" cornerstone of the argument for people explaining how Oswald carried a rifle to work, right? That's what you say when we say, "The package wasn't big enough to fit a rifle..." you say "Frazier and Randle must have got it wrong..."

Now you say the bag was too big for a sandwich? I'm confused... was he right after all? But your whole argument hangs on him being wrong?

You think he was wrong, right? You think he got the size of the package wrong?

So show me why it is MORE realistic that he got it wrong by completely re-imagining the size of a package that contained a rifle, despite seeing it in three frames of reference including REALLY familiar ones like the back seat of his own car, and the distance between a human hand and a human armpit... rather than getting the size right for a bag that could have contained lunch instead of curtain rods.

How is your rifle theory MORE realistic than the notion of a lunch bag? 

 

I can use EVERY argument the LN'ers have ever made about Frazier and Randle to show that the bag was just as likely to contain an apple as it was a rifle. The difference is that the apple can also fit in the bag they described! The Rifle can't!

And just so we're clear. I don't care whether it contained curtain rods or a PB&J and fruit. My point remains, the evidence does not support a Rifle being carried to work by Lee Harvey Oswald that morning. Unless you pick and choose which bits of evidence you like, and dismiss the bits you don't. And if you are going to do that you need to show a better reason than "the only way my theory works is if the witness was right about this and this, but wrong about that and that."

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Tommy Tomlinson]

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, Randle immediately described it as "long" and told the WC it "almost touched the ground." Frazier and Randle described it as between 27" and 30." Frazier observed it extending from Oswald's cupped hand to what appeared to be his armpit. Does that sound like any lunch you've ever seen anyone bring to work?

Oswald told Frazier he wanted a ride to get curtain rods. Frazier relayed that infiormation to Randle the same night. When Frazier asked the next morning what was in the bag, Oswald said curtain rods when he could've easily said "My lunch."

Oswald then denied he had said anything to Frazier about curtain rods but had brought his lunch. Meaning (1) Frazier lied to his own sister and investigators for no apparent reason, and (2) you have no explanation for why Oswald wanted a ride to Ruth's house the night before the assassination. Oswald's lunch alibi was at least semi-clever in the short term because he knew there were no curtain rods in the TSBD, there was a rifle and bag, and his lunch would've disappeared into his stomach.

So, yes, I believe that by far the most logical explanation is that Frazier and Randle simply didn't pay enough attention to the package to distinguish between 27-30" and 34.8-38". What they said is at least in the ballpark of the rifle but not in the ballpark of a sandwich and apple.

OK, lets tie the statements together. Using logic.

Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving for "Curtain Rods"

Oswald told cops he carried lunch, (and people saw him eating his lunch).

Marina said that he came to Irving to try and reconcile after an argument.

No one found curtain rods, and Truly wrote a charming letter explaining the customary procedure for the handling of unclaimed curtain rods at the TSBD...

Lets start by taking everyone at face value and see if a simple LOGICAL solution presents itself.

So, Oswald doesn't want Frazier to know about his marital issues so says "Curtain Rods". The following morning he arrives at Fraziers, and he is carrying the lunch bag because he remembers "Oh... I told Wesley that I was bringing Curtain Rods..." and carries his lunch bag at its full length. Probably hoping Wesley has either forgotten or simply doesn't care. Wesley, however, asks what is in the package, and Oswald says "Curtain Rods" because he's not sure if Wesley is going to say "Oh, but weren't you getting curtain rods" because he wants a quiet ride to work. They go on to work. Oswald carries the bag under his arm till he gets out of Wesley's line of sight, because now he's committed to the stupid lie rather than admit the marital issues. Once out of sight, he rolls the bag up and carries it normally, no one notices him carrying anything on the way in to work. And when he gets arrested later in the day he simply... tells the truth.

That simple story fits all the evidence given, and requires no cherry picking of sections of evidence to insert a rifle. At no point in any of the story of Oswald going to work that day does the rifle present itself without the manipulation of specific elements of evidence. Nothing about it suggests "Rifle."

None of the evidence supports a rifle being present until you warp and bend the evidence to fit the theory. I know that's how the Warren Commission did business, but that's why a lot of us consider it severely flawed in its conclusions.

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:09 PM, Tommy Tomlinson said:

That simple story fits all the evidence given,

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, Randle immediately described it as "long" and told the WC it "almost touched the ground." Frazier and Randle described it as between 27" and 30." Frazier observed it extending from Oswald's cupped hand to what appeared to be his armpit. Does that sound like any lunch you've ever seen anyone bring to work?

Oswald told Frazier he wanted a ride to get curtain rods. Frazier relayed that infiormation to Randle the same night. When Frazier asked the next morning what was in the bag, Oswald said curtain rods when he could've easily said "My lunch."

Oswald then denied he had said anything to Frazier about curtain rods but had brought his lunch. Meaning (1) Frazier lied to his own sister and investigators for no apparent reason, and (2) you have no explanation for why Oswald wanted a ride to Ruth's house the night before the assassination. Oswald's lunch alibi was at least semi-clever in the short term because he knew there were no curtain rods in the TSBD, there was a rifle and bag, and his lunch would've disappeared into his stomach.

So, yes, I believe that by far the most logical explanation is that Frazier and Randle simply didn't pay enough attention to the package to distinguish between 27-30" and 34.8-38". What they said is at least in the ballpark of the rifle but not in the ballpark of a sandwich and apple.

Let's be clear. The bag described by Frazier is not in the "ballpark" of the bag later photographed. The bag he described was basically half the size of that bag. 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

10 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

That "simple" story???

That simple story then requires unknown conspirators to have surreptitiously entered Ruth's home without anyone noticing, removed Oswald's rifle without him noticing on Thursday, entered the TSBD with it and planted it on the sixth floor without being observed, either coming or going, by the numerous people working there. Whereupon the not-so-simple story becomes extremely-not-so-simple in addition to being raw speculation.

And, of course, your hypothesis isn't what Oswald said. He said Frazier was "mistaken" about him having said anything about curtain rods. And you still have the problem of Oswald bringing a comically large bag to hold a sandwich and apple (reaching almost to the ground? reaching from his cupped hand to his armpit?).

The "maybe, maybe, maybe" game of raw speculation to support a conspiratorial theory is endless, which is why I decline to play it. You eventually end up with something like "Maybe aliens did it." The inference to the best explanation that meshes with the actual evidence is the correct approach. You are putting a speculative conspiratorial spin on the actual evidence to force-fit it into the conspiratorial explanation you prefer.

(When you say Oswald was seen eating his lunch, I believe you overstate the evidence. I don't know of anyone who said they actually saw him eating.)

I'm sorry but the entire "Oswald carried a rifle to work on Friday morning"  is founded on "Maybe" Frazier was wrong, "Maybe" Randal was mistaken. Show me evidence for the rifle being in that bag that doesn't rely on you playing a game of "I'l take 2 lines of evidence from Frazier... leave the next three. Randle.. I'll take one, drop one, keep the next one and drop the rest"

The ONLY rationale you have for their sporadic reliability is a need for them to be specifically right and wrong on YOUR terms rather than any sort of evidence that supports that pattern of reliability.

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:59 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. The bag described by Frazier is not in the "ballpark" of the bag later photographed. The bag he described was basically half the size of that bag. 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette