#1
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #6 Refuted.
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #6 Refuted.
(6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car.
Until you can put a rifle in that package, it does nothing to indict Oswald. It's also worth noting that every witness who saw that package, and testified about it, stated that it was too short to contain a rifle. Their testimony is quite compelling, because of the way that they stated Oswald had carried the package, with his palm under the package, and the top of the package was UNDER his armpit.
Now, either Oswald had the arms of an Orangutan, or the package wasn't long enough for the Mannlicher Carcano that Bugliosi believes it contained.
Since Bugliosi already lied about curtain rods not having turned up in this case - one can legitimately wonder if Oswald would have stopped to tie his shoelaces, it would have ended up in Bugliosi's list of evidence...
Again, the theme of presuming Oswald's guilt – THEN using everything he did and said as evidence of that 'guilt'. We're seeing this theme over and over again.
Until you can put a rifle in that package, it does nothing to indict Oswald. It's also worth noting that every witness who saw that package, and testified about it, stated that it was too short to contain a rifle. Their testimony is quite compelling, because of the way that they stated Oswald had carried the package, with his palm under the package, and the top of the package was UNDER his armpit.
Now, either Oswald had the arms of an Orangutan, or the package wasn't long enough for the Mannlicher Carcano that Bugliosi believes it contained.
Since Bugliosi already lied about curtain rods not having turned up in this case - one can legitimately wonder if Oswald would have stopped to tie his shoelaces, it would have ended up in Bugliosi's list of evidence...
Again, the theme of presuming Oswald's guilt – THEN using everything he did and said as evidence of that 'guilt'. We're seeing this theme over and over again.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #6 Refuted.
Oswald's gun was used to assassinate JFK. Fact
Unless Oswald took the gun in at another time, he must have taken it in on that day unless some one else did it for him.
As no strangers were reported at the Paine house, it is compelling that Oswald took the dismantled rifle to work on 22 Nov 1963.
Frazier stated he paid little attention to the package - why would he?
When Oswald walked away from Frazier in the TSBD parking lot he did not wait for Frazier, he walked on ahead, he could easily sloted the package under his armpit to hold it in place allowing for the excess length of the package to protrude forwards out of his armpit proud of his chest. The protrusion would not nceessarily have been visible to Frazier, nor would he have had a good view of it nor paid much attention to it.
It a load of old tripe that Oswald did not take his rifle into work that day. Of course he did!
Unless Oswald took the gun in at another time, he must have taken it in on that day unless some one else did it for him.
As no strangers were reported at the Paine house, it is compelling that Oswald took the dismantled rifle to work on 22 Nov 1963.
Frazier stated he paid little attention to the package - why would he?
When Oswald walked away from Frazier in the TSBD parking lot he did not wait for Frazier, he walked on ahead, he could easily sloted the package under his armpit to hold it in place allowing for the excess length of the package to protrude forwards out of his armpit proud of his chest. The protrusion would not nceessarily have been visible to Frazier, nor would he have had a good view of it nor paid much attention to it.
It a load of old tripe that Oswald did not take his rifle into work that day. Of course he did!
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #6 Refuted.
(10-23-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Oswald's gun was used to assassinate JFK. Fact
Amusingly, you simply evaded the point made, and quite desperately change the topic.
No, it's not a fact, and you can't turn your speculation into a "fact" until you can find endorsements on that money order.
And you never will...
(10-23-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Unless Oswald took the gun in at another time, he must have taken it in on that day unless some one else did it for him.
A logical fallacy...
Simply presuming what you need to prove.
(10-23-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: As no strangers were reported at the Paine house, it is compelling that Oswald took the dismantled rifle to work on 22 Nov 1963.
Another logical fallacy... the presumptions you keep making are truly funny!!!
(10-23-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Frazier stated he paid little attention to the package - why would he?
When Oswald walked away from Frazier in the TSBD parking lot he did not wait for Frazier, he walked on ahead, he could easily sloted the package under his armpit to hold it in place allowing for the excess length of the package to protrude forwards out of his armpit proud of his chest. The protrusion would not nceessarily have been visible to Frazier, nor would he have had a good view of it nor paid much attention to it.
It a load of old tripe that Oswald did not take his rifle into work that day. Of course he did!
Trying to evade the point isn't the same as actually refuting what I said, is it?
Lying about what the witnesses said that they saw won't do you any good... I'm here to point out your lies.
Quote:Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Keep "refuting" my posts, Patrick...
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)