Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle?  Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?

Silly conspirators.

That's a great question.  CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities.  One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.  It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length.  We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.  It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found.  If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier.  In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag.  This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods.  Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle.  This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable. 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a great question.  CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities.  One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.  It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length.  We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.  It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found.  If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier.  In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag.  This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods.  Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle.  This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.

One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.

Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?

Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.

So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.


This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain

This is all so simple and obvious to any person without a functioning brain.

There, I fixed it for you, Richard     

[Richard Smith]

One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.

Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?

Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.

So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.  If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations.  It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain.  But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers.  Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.  CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying.  There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.

[Martin Weidmann]

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.  If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations.  It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain.  But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers.  Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.  CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying.  There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.

Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.

Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.

Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....

But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?

[Walt Cakebread]

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.

Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.

Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.

Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....

But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?

I've been studying the paper bag aspect ( as it first emerged)  pretty thoroughly  recently.....

I am now of the opinion that It was Buell Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle who first mentioned "curtain rods"

Linnie Mae saw the police cars gathered around the Paine residence and by her own statement she said that she had been following evens on the TV and radio, when she heard that the suspect's name was Lee Harvey Oswald ... That's when she went the half block to the Paine residence and reported to Detective Adamcik that she had sen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack like the sacks that are used for curtain rods.....

[Walt Cakebread]

If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle?  Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?

Silly conspirators.

Frazier never lied about the bag's existence......  He knew hat his sister had told the police that lee was carrying a curtain rod type bag  when she saw him walking i the rain that morning.  Frazier wasn't about to cal his sister a liar... so he went along with that idea  while having absolute knowledge that the bag could NOT have held that rifle.  Frazier grossly underestimated the perfidy and treachery of the DPD..... He wasn't bright enough to understand that the were going to present the results of his so called "lie detector test"  in which he said they had told him the test showed that he was telling the truth.   Of course if Frazier was telling the truth then Lee Oswald had to be lying.....

The whole thing was a charade.....

[Richard Smith]

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.

Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.

Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.

Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....

But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?

The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.  What is so difficult to understand about that?  The bag was found.  We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.  You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise.  You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.  It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence.  No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.  Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion.  Let us know how that works out.