Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)

[Charles Collins]

Frazier never said he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  That's just something you made up.

Watch (and listen) to the specified section of the video interview that I linked to in my original post. He most certainly does.

[Charles Collins]

So basically you can't explain how you know that Frazier was "blatantly and intentionally lying" -- you just "know" it.

I explained it at least twice. Although it requires no explanation. You just refuse to comprehend.

[John Iacoletti]

Watch (and listen) to the specified section of the video interview that I linked to in my original post. He most certainly does.

He most certainly does not.  Provide the actual quote of him saying that he he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  He said he saw Oswald walking alongside the building on the Houston street side.

[John Iacoletti]

I explained it at least twice. Although it requires no explanation. You just refuse to comprehend.

You claimed that it was "crystal clear" that "Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying", and your only "explanation" is that his 11/22/63 affidavit is seemingly in conflict with his later interviews with Mack and Fagin.

But how do conflicting statements necessarily show "blatant and intentional lying"?

[Charles Collins]

He most certainly does not.  Provide the actual quote of him saying that he he saw Oswald come from the rear exit of the Depository.  He said he saw Oswald walking alongside the building on the Houston street side.

I stand corrected. Coming from the direction of the rear exit is what I was thinking. Thanks for the correction. 

[Charles Collins]

You claimed that it was "crystal clear" that "Buell Frazier is blatantly and intentionally lying", and your only "explanation" is that his 11/22/63 affidavit is seemingly in conflict with his later interviews with Mack and Fagin.

But how do conflicting statements necessarily show "blatant and intentional lying"?

That isn't what I said.

[John Iacoletti]

That isn't what I said.

It most certainly is.  This is what you said:

The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie. And if the affidavit is not true, then it is a lie. Either way he is a liar.

What you never explained is why you are assuming a non-truth must be a "blatant and intentional lie".