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?
