Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack

[John Iacoletti]

And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said.

Which he does over and over again and then can't figure out why they're called strawman arguments.

[Martin Weidmann]

Which he does over and over again and then can't figure out why they're called strawman arguments.

Poor old Richard isn't very good in dealing with facts being placed before him. He much rather invents his own alternate reality so that he can stay in his comfort zone.

Too afraid to leave his own house on a sunny day for fear that it might rain and he gets wet!

[Walt Cakebread]

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.

Talk about dishonesty!... Frazier also said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". That's the lunch sack John was talking about. The one you claimed (without a shred of evidence) was searched for and never found.

Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? 

This is hilarious coming from the guy who claims everything Frazier said was in error unless it was something that fits his biased theory.
Frazier had no way of knowing what was in the bag and thus he could never confirm anything of the kind.

The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it. 

No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
You keep repeating that the bag "had Oswald's prints on it" when the reality is that it had several other prints on it as well and only two parcials prints belonging to Oswald.... if Latona is to be believed, that is. Unfortunately, the silver nitrate he used to find the prints destroyed them as well so no independent verification was ever possible.

And even if there were prints from Oswald on that bag, so what? The bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald had been working that same morning. The prints could have gotten on the paper bag simply by him moving it. But that's not important or valid to dishonest Richard, right? 

They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.

Actually, the stupidity is all yours, poor Richie! The TSBD bag was found in the afternoon and shown to Frazier at 11.30 PM that same evening. It is at that time that Frazier denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry and also the time he described the bag that he had seen as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". You claimed that such a bag was searched for but never found and that was a lie! There is no record whatsoever to show that the DPD returned to the TSBD after obtaining Frazier's description to look for such a bag.

The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.

And here is the outright lie again.... The DPD did not even search the building good enough on Friday afternoon, because they failed to find Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he had used that morning. They did not find a flimsy bag because they never looked for it and after Frazier gave them the description they never went back and searched for it. Your entire argument is bogus and invalid.

The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.

No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.

Here's the way I see it.....

A) Linnie Mae Randle and her mother were watching the TV coverage of he assassination. They saw DPD Detectives Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery emerge from the TSBD carrying a large paper sack.  The reporter said the detectives surmised that Oswald has carried the rifle into the TSBD in the paper sack.

B) LMR recalled that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that dark and rainy morning.

C)  LMR sees all of the police cars at the house of Paine and and decides to go tell the police that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that morning and she had seen Oswald put the sack in her brother's car.

Thus LMR alerted the police to her brother's possible involvement as an accessory and  the curtain rod tale.

[Martin Weidmann]

The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.

No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.

Here's the way I see it.....

A) Linnie Mae Randle and her mother were watching the TV coverage of he assassination. They saw DPD Detectives Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery emerge from the TSBD carrying a large paper sack.  The reporter said the detectives surmised that Oswald has carried the rifle into the TSBD in the paper sack.

B) LMR recalled that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that dark and rainy morning.

C)  LMR sees all of the police cars at the house of Paine and and decides to go tell the police that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that morning and she had seen Oswald put the sack in her brother's car.

Thus LMR alerted the police to her brother's possible involvement as an accessory and  the curtain rod tale.

Walt,

Do you know where I can find the TV footage of Johnson and Montgomery leaving the TSBD. I don't recall ever seeing that.

[Walt Cakebread]

What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?

And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
 
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?

Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.

I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.


I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying. 

No, you have given me the explanation of a mentally impaired child who, against mounting evidence, is desperately trying to find a way to explain away why it could not simply be that Frazier did not recognize the bag shown to him as the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier because it wasn't the same bag!.

Frazier described the bag he had seen Oswald carry as a flimsy five and dime shop bag. Whatever gave you the idea that Frazier was in error when he dismissed the TSBD bag, other than of course your desperate need to keep the TSBD bag in play.

Frazier estimates the size of the bag..... You say he was mistaken, but you were not there.

Frazier says the bag fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand...... You say Oswald could have carried the package protruding outward, but you did not see him carrying it that way.

Frazier says, while being polygraphed, that the bag they showed him wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry....... You say he was not only in error, he even did not know himself that he was in error and thus answered honestly, but you have nothing more than a biased opinion for that claim.

You see the pathetic pattern?

It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again. 

I didn't backtrack one bit.... You made your usual silly strawman argument and as usual it went nowhere.

There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.

Translation; I really haven't got anything remotely plausible to counter Martin's arguments with, so I'll just keep on repeating that the TSBD bag was the bag Oswald carried that morning no matter what the witness who actually saw it says.

I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.

At the time they subjected Frazier to the polygraph he was very agitated and frightened.....A polygrah will not register any useful information under those conditions.

The DPD were simply "using" Frazier......   They wanted him to believe that the polygraph had confirmed that he was telling the truth about Lee telling him that there were curtain rods in the paper sack.  ( When in reality the polygraph was worthless)  Thus Frazier was stuck with the curtain rod tale.....and Lee Oswald was a liar.

[Richard Smith]

Insults don't make your ridiculous argument any better.  Answer the question, Richard.  Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found.  Does that mean that there was no Harold Norman lunch bag?

Again, why are you mentioning an ordinary lunch sack when the discussion was about the two-foot plus long bag that Frazier indicated Oswald carried?  Your silly claim is that a bag along the size Frazier estimated wasn't found because no one searched for it.   That has absolutely nothing to do with looking for anyone's lunch sack.  In fact, Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he wasn't carrying it that day.  I know you entertain multiple, mutually exclusive realities in which Frazier must be absolutely correct in his estimate of the bag's length but it can also be an ordinary lunch sack (even though his testimony confirms it was not) but that is taking the privilege of being a dishonest contrarian too far.  You should be embarrassed.  A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  After 50 plus years that bag cannot be accounted for in any way except as the bag Oswald used to carry the rifle that morning.  Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks.  But again if you think you have evidence that casts doubts this historical conclusion, don't waste your time here.  Take it to the NY Times and tell them you can cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.  Get back to us on their response. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, why are you mentioning an ordinary lunch sack when the discussion was about the two-foot plus long bag that Frazier indicated Oswald carried?  Your silly claim is that a bag along the size Frazier estimated wasn't found because no one searched for it.   That has absolutely nothing to do with looking for anyone's lunch sack.  In fact, Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he wasn't carrying it that day.  I know you entertain multiple, mutually exclusive realities in which Frazier must be absolutely correct in his estimate of the bag's length but it can also be an ordinary lunch sack (even though his testimony confirms it was not) but that is taking the privilege of being a dishonest contrarian too far.  You should be embarrassed.  A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  After 50 plus years that bag cannot be accounted for in any way except as the bag Oswald used to carry the rifle that morning.  Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks.  But again if you think you have evidence that casts doubts this historical conclusion, don't waste your time here.  Take it to the NY Times and tell them you can cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.  Get back to us on their response.

Don't you ever stop lying?

[Richard Smith]

What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?

And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
 
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?

Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.

I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.


[

This one is a real lulu. Dance circus monkey dance for your peanuts.  After referencing the polygraph multiple times in connection with your claim that the bag Frazier was shown was not the same one Oswald carried that morning, we now learn that you did that only because I would make a "big deal" out of it for some unknown reason.  Even before I had even chimed in on the matter.  LOL.  Incoherent nonsense.  You were clearly referencing the results of the polygraph to support your fantasy that Frazier was correct about that not being the bag Oswald carried because the polygraph did not indicate he was lying.  Once you were educated on how a polygraph works (i.e. not determining the truth but indicating whether a participant is intentionally lying) then you backtracked to this psycho-babble that makes no sense.  Just admit you are a dishonest fool and beg forgiveness for wasting our time again.