Et tu, Bonnie?

[Martin Weidmann]

Not only will "Richard" never answer the question, but he will trot out the same claim again the next time the subject comes up.

As shown in his latest post 

[Richard Smith]

As shown in his latest post 

So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?  That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.  Your dishonest contrarian cult brother keeps erroneously claiming he had 15 minutes to do so.  But that is wrong.  He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.  At most he would have had 7-10 minutes to get the boarding house if he was still at the TSBD as late as 12:45. 

Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right

[Martin Weidmann]

So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?  That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.  Your dishonest contrarian cult brother keeps erroneously claiming he had 15 minutes to do so.  But that is wrong.  He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.  At most he would have had 7-10 minutes to get the boarding house if he was still at the TSBD as late as 12:45. 

Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right

So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?

Fool. I have never alleged anything of the kind. It is just a pathetic strawman that you keep using. One doesn't need to estimate a size of a bag, when one sees the bag being carried in the cup of a hand and under an armpit. All you need to do is measure the length of the arm!

That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.

Before 1PM? I agree... at 1PM, sure he can.

He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.

Who says he left before 1PM?

[Dan O'meara]

I think you're reading stuff into it that isn't there.  He stood still after the shots.  That doesn't mean he stood still right up to the time he went back into the building.  He never said that he stayed on the top step the entire time.

In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?

[Dan O'meara]

It seems you will use only those quotes that you like and ignore the rest.

I don't need to win a point. In fact I'll gladly be convinced by a solid argument, so why don't you try to make one instead of whining.

I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:

As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.

In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".

In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots -  "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.

This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:

"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."


You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?

[Martin Weidmann]

I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:

As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.

In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".

In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots -  "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."

The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.

Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.

This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:

"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."


You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?

I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps.

People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly. Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall. I've experienced many times when somebody has "absolutely told me to the whole story" only to hear additions and corrections to that story months later.

It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked.

Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony.

This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:

"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."


You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?

And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it. You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument.

Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? 

[Colin Crow]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Anyone want to present any photo of CE142 that would be consistent with this description?