Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

Oh please, stop the whining. You sound just as bad as the WC counsel Ball and his mates sounded back in the 60's when, in public discussions, they couldn't deal with what Mark Lane was pointing out to them. I've never heard such a bunch of bumbling and stuttering old fools! The mere fact that they refused to enter into a debate and only wanted to "examine" Mark Lane's opinions is just as telling as your ramblings.

The document is either authentic or manipulated.

Indeed. So, show it's authenticity and be done with it.

If authentic, then it links Oswald to a specific rifle. The same one found on the 6th floor because of the serial number match.

To a certain degree, yes. Waldman 7, if authentic, would link the Hidell order to the rifle found at the 6th floor, provided the other documents are authentic as well.

If that is the case end of discussion, but you don't accept this.

Says who? But let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we. Baby steps.... let's start with showing the documents are authethic.

If Oswald was not sent the rifle with that serial number from Klein's, then obviously someone else would have been sent the rifle.

Possibly. Unless it was bought over the counter at Kleins'.

Why wouldn't the FBI have any interest in this individual whose Klein's records confirm was sent the rifle found in the TSBD and used to assassinate the president?

What makes you so sure there were records for the sending of a rifle, when there is no such document for the rifle found at the TSBD?

But the obvious answer to your question is, that, from day one, the FBI has never shown any interest in anybody except Oswald, after Hoover declared, before hardly any evidence had been collected and/or analyzed, that Oswald was the lone gunman.

The trouble is that there is absolutely nothing straight forward when it comes to the rifle that was found at the TSBD.

It's a 40.2" when a 36" was ordered by Hidell.

The authenticity of the bullet CE399 now in evidence, is in question because of a complete lack of chain of custody and the fact that nobody, who handled the Parkland bullet, could identify it, until after it arrived at the FBI lab in Washington.

Even the WC did not not accept the authenticity of the bullet, initially, which they never showed to Tomlinson for identification, during his testimony. This resulted in the false FBI claim that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, which is something Odum himself denied.

The two fragments that were allegedly taken from the limousine, were delivered to Frazier at the FBI lab and he was told they came from the limo, but no evidence was ever presented to confirm that.

The so-called Walker bullet, which the HSCA showed the public, was dismissed by General Walker as the bullet that had been taken out of the wall of his home.

That's a hell of a lot of evidentiary problems for just one rifle allegedly used by a lone nut!


We know from other documentation that Klein's handled this particular rifle. So they sold it to someone. 

Likely

Any of their records relating to the sale of this rifle to another individual would have to be obtained and suppressed by the authorities.  Klein's would have to be involved in that effort and any cover up.

Why would Klein's have to be involved? The FBI took the microfilm and then subsequently, rather conveniently, lost it.

Oswald would have been sent another rifle from Klein's when he orders his rifle from them.

If Oswald was indeed behind the Hidell order, they may not have sent him anything. Ever considered that possibility? The order was for a 36" rifle. The rifle found at the TSBD was 40.2". It could just as easily be that Kleins' was unable to deliver the 36" rifle, notified the client and the transaction was cancelled. You are assuming that the transaction went through, and that Kleins' just sent the wrong rifle, despite the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was ever sent out.

The one peddling nonsense is you and you are doing it simply because you can not authenticate the Kleins' documents. None of your drivel comes anywhere close to authenticating the evidence. That's the elephant in the room and all you can do is dance around it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

Why would anybody have a problem with the authentication of evidence is a complete mystery to me, unless of course the objection against evidence authentication is the result of an understanding that a closer look at the evidence might reveal it's weakness.

You just wasted an entire post to get nowhere. It's pathetic!

LOL.  No explanation for why the FBI would alter evidence to frame Oswald but allow the person who actually ordered the rifle from Klein's to go free.  It just might be so.  And Klein's wouldn't send Oswald any rifle even though he ordered it, paid for it, and they processed his order?  It just mysteriously disappears into the ether.  And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.  Allowing the FBI the opportunity to modify his order to make it look like he was sent the TSBD rifle. Very silly.  It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt.   It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious.  Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian.  No one could possibly believe this nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  No explanation for why the FBI would alter evidence to frame Oswald but allow the person who actually ordered the rifle from Klein's to go free.  It just might be so.  And Klein's wouldn't send Oswald any rifle even though he ordered it, paid for it, and they processed his order?  It just mysteriously disappears into the ether.  And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.  Allowing the FBI the opportunity to modify his order to make it look like he was sent the TSBD rifle. Very silly.  It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt.   It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious.  Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian.  No one could possibly believe this nonsense.

Here we go again. Not a single reply to any of the points I have raised. It's no surprise though as you can never make a convincing argument about anything. Strawman, circular logic and misrepresentation combined with evasion and pathetic attempts of ridicule is you M.O.

I don't have to give you an explanation for why the FBI did or did not do something. I would only be able to speculate and I'd rather leave that to you, as that's about all you do.

The bottom line is that you, just like the WC before you, will use just about anything as evidence against Oswald, regardless if it can be authenticated or not. That's the laziest way to build a case against anybody. You haven't even come close to explaining why you feel - as you clearly do - that authentication of evidence isn't neccesary and why chains of custody are just a waste of time.

You can ramble on as much as you like, with questions based on speculation and assumptions, but you will never alter the fact that you place the bar so low that it is nearly below ground level.

And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.

If Oswald was set up, why would something like that even be a coincidence?

[Richard Smith]

Here we go again. Not a single reply to any of the points I have raised. It's no surprise though as you can never make a convincing argument about anything. Strawman, circular logic and misrepresentation combined with evasion and pathetic attempts of ridicule is you M.O.

I don't have to give you an explanation for why the FBI did or did not do something. I would only be able to speculate and I'd rather leave that to you, as that's about all you do.

The bottom line is that you, just like the WC before you, will use just about anything as evidence against Oswald, regardless if it can be authenticated or not. That's the laziest way to build a case against anybody. You haven't even come close to explaining why you feel - as you clearly do - that authentication of evidence isn't neccesary and why chains of custody are just a waste of time.

You can ramble on as much as you like, with questions based on speculation and assumptions, but you will never alter the fact that you place the bar so low that it is nearly below ground level.

And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.

If Oswald was set up, why would something like that even be a coincidence?

You suggest that the FBI might have framed Oswald after the fact by writing the serial number onto Waldman 7.   Then claim you don't have to give any explanation for this at all?  Of course, an explanation is necessary to make an assessment of the validity of this theory.  You apparently can't even speculate on why they did this, however.  There is zero evidence anything like this happened.  It is just possible.  They were just out to get Oswald for some unknown reason.  They didn't care who really ordered the rifle or assassinated the president.  Or the risk entailed in faking evidence to frame an innocent person for the assassination within hours of the event while the investigation was still in the early stages.  That is not a viable narrative because it defies all logic.  What would the FBI do if someone from Klein's announced they actually found some document linking the TSBD rifle to another person and that they sent a different rifle to Oswald?  What if another rifle from Klein's had been found among Oswald's possessions etc?  Factors beyond the control of the FBI.  We are left to our imagination. 

In your scenario, the FBI is framing Oswald AFTER the fact.  They are handwriting the serial number on a document after they obtain it from Klein's after Oswald has been arrested and the TSBD rifle is found.  As a result, it has to be a coincidence that Oswald has ordered his rifle from the same company as whomever ordered the rifle left in the TSBD.  His order is processed before the assassination.  If you are suggesting that the FBI was involved in framing Oswald for the assassination both before and after the event, however, then that opens up a host of additional problems for your scenario.  Why not just use the serial number of whatever rifle Klein's actually sent to Oswald's PO Box and leave that rifle in the TBSD instead of having to alter Waldman after the fact to make it look as though they had sent that rifle to him?  It is not simply a matter of just obtaining the document from Klein's and writing the serial number on the form as you suggested to link Oswald to the rifle.  That would invoke a number of risky complexities and implausible scenarios that would have to be accounted for.  Your contrarian approach is simply to suggest something was possible, therefore there is doubt about the matter without any evidence or analysis of the event. 

[Martin Weidmann]

You suggest that the FBI might have framed Oswald after the fact by writing the serial number onto Waldman 7.   Then claim you don't have to give any explanation for this at all?  Of course, an explanation is necessary to make an assessment of the validity of this theory.  You apparently can't even speculate on why they did this, however.  There is zero evidence anything like this happened.  It is just possible.  They were just out to get Oswald for some unknown reason.  They didn't care who really ordered the rifle or assassinated the president.  Or the risk entailed in faking evidence to frame an innocent person for the assassination within hours of the event while the investigation was still in the early stages.  That is not a viable narrative because it defies all logic.  What would the FBI do if someone from Klein's announced they actually found some document linking the TSBD rifle to another person and that they sent a different rifle to Oswald?  What if another rifle from Klein's had been found among Oswald's possessions etc?  Factors beyond the control of the FBI.  We are left to our imagination. 

In your scenario, the FBI is framing Oswald AFTER the fact.  They are handwriting the serial number on a document after they obtain it from Klein's after Oswald has been arrested and the TSBD rifle is found.  As a result, it has to be a coincidence that Oswald has ordered his rifle from the same company as whomever ordered the rifle left in the TSBD.  His order is processed before the assassination.  If you are suggesting that the FBI was involved in framing Oswald for the assassination both before and after the event, however, then that opens up a host of additional problems for your scenario.  Why not just use the serial number of whatever rifle Klein's actually sent to Oswald's PO Box and leave that rifle in the TBSD instead of having to alter Waldman after the fact to make it look as though they had sent that rifle to him?  It is not simply a matter of just obtaining the document from Klein's and writing the serial number on the form as you suggested to link Oswald to the rifle.  That would invoke a number of risky complexities and implausible scenarios that would have to be accounted for.  Your contrarian approach is simply to suggest something was possible, therefore there is doubt about the matter without any evidence or analysis of the event.

I don't need you to tell me what I suggest or not nor do I need you to tell me what my scenario is, even when I have one.

As per usual you've got the whole thing backwards. I don't have to suggest anything, nor do I need any kind of theory for why the FBI did or did not do anything. None of that has anything to do with the basic fact that all evidence needs to be authenticated to be valid. Authentication eliminates the possibility of different interpretations of the evidence. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the evidence against Oswald was ever authenticated.

All your "what if" ramblings are insignificant. When a piece of evidence is to be used against a suspect/defendant it needs to be authenticated. Period. I am not interested in all your petty theories for why an unauthenticated piece of evidence should be considered authentic after all.

It's pretty obvious by now that you can not authenticate any document, which means that you just simply want those documents to be accepted at face value. Try to pull of a stunt like that in court.....

[David Von Pein]

It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you [Martin Weidmann] apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt.   It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious.  Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian.  No one could possibly believe this nonsense.

Amen to that, Richard!!!

CTers have been in total denial concerning Oswald's rifle purchase for many years now, with that "denial" status reaching humongous proportions since the burgeoning of the Internet.

It's rather humorous to note that in the topsy-turvy world of Internet conspiracy fantasists, something that is (as Joseph Ball correctly pointed out to Mark Lane in December of 1964) "a conclusive fact" (that fact being: Lee Harvey Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in late March 1963) is considered by CTers to be something that has no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.....but something else that relies on some of the flimsiest evidence in the whole case---such as the "Grassy Knoll Gunman" theory---is treated by conspiracy theorists as if it had the word of God Himself to back up its validity.

Topsy-turvy indeed.

Full Joe Ball quote regarding Oswald's rifle purchase:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald authenticated the entire assassination all by himself.
Easy as pie. Piece of cake. Slam dunk.

Booyah.

[David Von Pein]

None of your click bait is verification of serial and control numbers supplied by Klein's/FBI.

You fail again since that's what you're best at.

 

Just like I said ---
"CTers have been in total denial concerning Oswald's rifle purchase for many years now."

Thanks for confirming it, O.B.