Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[David Monaghan]

I've gave hundreds of lifts to workmates down the years, would I take note of the package they were carrying and shape etc, very likely not, however if he carried it cupped under his armpit as BWF stated he did then that's a pretty good observation that he's never waivered on, if so and as we know the rifle couldn't be disassembled to fit then you have an issue no ?

[Charles Collins]

I've gave hundreds of lifts to workmates down the years, would I take note of the package they were carrying and shape etc, very likely not, however if he carried it cupped under his armpit as BWF stated he did then that's a pretty good observation that he's never waivered on, if so and as we know the rifle couldn't be disassembled to fit then you have an issue no ?

Perhaps you missed this part of post #35 by DVP in this thread:

Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:

VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

[Martin Weidmann]

Perhaps you missed this part of post #35 by DVP in this thread:

Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:

VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

It's meaningless quote. Frazier answered the question honestly and his answer would be the same if the question had been; "If Oswald didn't bring a bag that day, you wouldn't be able to see it, is that correct?"

There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". It's just a desperate attempt by a prosecutor to somehow explain why Frazier couldn't see the bag as Oswald was walking away from him. The real reason why Frazier could not see the bag is, according to Frazier, that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

[Charles Collins]

It's meaningless quote. Frazier answered the question honestly and his answer would be the same if the question had been; "If Oswald didn't bring a bag that day, you wouldn't be able to see it, is that correct?"

There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". It's just a desperate attempt by a prosecutor to somehow explain why Frazier couldn't see the bag as Oswald was walking away from him. The real reason why Frazier could not see the bag is, according to Frazier, that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. 

[Richard Smith]

The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. 

It's hopeless.  The endless contrarian game.  A long bag was found in the building.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag.  Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack.  Martin doesn't understand why this is critical.  If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him.  For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it.  If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag.  What did Oswald do?  He denied carrying a long bag.  Case closed.

[Martin Weidmann]

The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. 

BS. Of course it's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". What there is evidence of is Frazier saying that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, yet, you pathetically ignore that completely. 

[Martin Weidmann]

It's hopeless.  The endless contrarian game.  A long bag was found in the building.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag.  Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack.  Martin doesn't understand why this is critical.  If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him.  For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it.  If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag.  What did Oswald do?  He denied carrying a long bag.  Case closed.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you write one master post that includes all your whining and complaining and refer to that every time you feel the need to post the same old crap again. It saves you time, because you don't have to type the same tripe over and over again and it saves us from being bored by the same old BS over and over again.

If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier,

The problem is that Martin isn't desperate about that at all. There is no need for it. If Martin is desperate for something it is probably that you, if only for once, actually present some evidence to support your opinions....