(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that morning.
It seems tiresome to keep pointing out the obvious.
1. We don't KNOW what Oswald said - this is hearsay evidence.
2. We don't KNOW that he had a 'long package' - there's eyewitness
testimony stating that he did not. And evidence that he ate a lunch
that he ordinarily brought with him.
3. We CERTAINLY don't know that any such package was long enough to
contain a rifle, indeed, the most persuasive and corroborated evidence
is that it was NOT long enough.
4. Were we to accept for the sake of argument that Oswald placed a
"long package" in Frazier's car, then lied about it, how would this
prove he murdered the President?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:28:44?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that
morning.
It seems tiresome to keep pointing out the obvious.
1. We don't KNOW what Oswald said - this is hearsay evidence.
2. We don't KNOW that he had a 'long package' - there's eyewitness
testimony stating that he did not. And evidence that he ate a lunch
that he ordinarily brought with him.
3. We CERTAINLY don't know that any such package was long enough to
contain a rifle, indeed, the most persuasive and corroborated evidence
is that it was NOT long enough.
4. Were we to accept for the sake of argument that Oswald placed a
"long package" in Frazier's car, then lied about it, how would this
prove he murdered the President?
Neither Frazier nor Randle ever described in testimony the package as a "long package".
That was a term used by Commission Counsel, Capt. Fritz and the FBI in their reports.
Neither Frazier nor Randle ever identified CE 142 as the "package" they saw.
There's no evidence that Oswald took a 38 inch "package" to work that morning. >NONE.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:28:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that morning.
It seems tiresome to keep pointing out the obvious.
1. We don't KNOW what Oswald said - this is hearsay evidence.
2. We don't KNOW that he had a 'long package' - there's eyewitness testimony stating that he did not. And evidence that he ate a lunch
that he ordinarily brought with him.
3. We CERTAINLY don't know that any such package was long enough to contain a rifle, indeed, the most persuasive and corroborated evidence
is that it was NOT long enough.
4. Were we to accept for the sake of argument that Oswald placed aNeither Frazier nor Randle ever described in testimony the package as a "long package".
"long package" in Frazier's car, then lied about it, how would this
prove he murdered the President?
That was a term used by Commission Counsel, Capt. Fritz and the FBI in their reports.
Neither Frazier nor Randle ever identified CE 142 as the "package" they saw.
There's no evidence that Oswald took a 38 inch "package" to work that morning.
NONE.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:40:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:28:44?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car thatNeither Frazier nor Randle ever described in testimony the package as a "long package".
morning.
It seems tiresome to keep pointing out the obvious.
1. We don't KNOW what Oswald said - this is hearsay evidence.
2. We don't KNOW that he had a 'long package' - there's eyewitness
testimony stating that he did not. And evidence that he ate a lunch
that he ordinarily brought with him.
3. We CERTAINLY don't know that any such package was long enough to
contain a rifle, indeed, the most persuasive and corroborated evidence
is that it was NOT long enough.
4. Were we to accept for the sake of argument that Oswald placed a
"long package" in Frazier's car, then lied about it, how would this
prove he murdered the President?
That was a term used by Commission Counsel, Capt. Fritz and the FBI in their reports.
Neither Frazier nor Randle ever identified CE 142 as the "package" they saw. >>
There's no evidence that Oswald took a 38 inch "package" to work that morning.
NONE.
This is why you need to find a new hobby, Gil. This one requires the ability to think logically.
When a 38 inch package is found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it, that is evidence
Oswald brought a 38 inch package into work.
You demand a ridiculous level of proof against Oswald that couldn't be met in this case nor
any other.
Then you turn around and accuse all sorts of people of being complicit in the >assassination based on nothing more than your silly hunches.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:52:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:40:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:28:44?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that >>> morning.Neither Frazier nor Randle ever described in testimony the package as a "long package".
It seems tiresome to keep pointing out the obvious.
1. We don't KNOW what Oswald said - this is hearsay evidence.
2. We don't KNOW that he had a 'long package' - there's eyewitness
testimony stating that he did not. And evidence that he ate a lunch
that he ordinarily brought with him.
3. We CERTAINLY don't know that any such package was long enough to
contain a rifle, indeed, the most persuasive and corroborated evidence >>> is that it was NOT long enough.
4. Were we to accept for the sake of argument that Oswald placed a
"long package" in Frazier's car, then lied about it, how would this
prove he murdered the President?
That was a term used by Commission Counsel, Capt. Fritz and the FBI in their reports.
Neither Frazier nor Randle ever identified CE 142 as the "package" they saw.
There's no evidence that Oswald took a 38 inch "package" to work that morning.
NONE.
This is why you need to find a new hobby, Gil. This one requires the ability to think logically.And it's quite clear that relying on logical fallacies is what one
does when one doesn't have evidence.
When a 38 inch package is found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it, that is evidenceThen simply cite the evidence for your assertions.
Oswald brought a 38 inch package into work.
Naked unsupported assertions are simply lies, according to
Chickenshit.
You wouldn't want to call Chickenshit a liar, would you?
Yet clearly, he's called *YOU* a liar...
You demand a ridiculous level of proof against Oswald that couldn't be met in this case norThis, of course, is a blatant lie. Gil is pointing out that ORDINARY
any other.
LEGAL PROCESS wasn't followed in this case.
The fact that you have to blatantly lie shows that *YOU* know you've
lost.
Then you turn around and accuse all sorts of people of being complicit in theYet you can't name even *one." Once again, you're simply lying.
assassination based on nothing more than your silly hunches.
Logical fallacies deleted. The fact that you have to rely on logical fallacies shows that you simply don't have the evidence.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 124:22:08 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,761 |