Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack  (Read 44697 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2018, 09:45:47 PM »
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?

Who said anything about an "ordinary lunch sack"?  What does that even mean?

Quote
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.

Your silly claim is that if someone's lunch sack was never found then it must have never existed.  And yet, Harold Norman's lunch sack was never found, was it Richard?

You're the one who should be embarrassed, making such a ridiculous argument.

Quote
A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description.

It doesn't match Frazier's general description at all.  Frazier said it was not the same bag.

Quote
  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.

What makes you think Oswald carried a rifle in that morning?

Quote
  Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

We've already been through that.  Another one of your lies.

Quote
  It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks.

It's a slam dunk TO fringe Internet kooks.  There, I fixed it for you.

"Historical conclusion".  LOL.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2018, 09:49:01 PM »
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.

The only think worse than an arrogant ass is an arrogant ass who is wrong.

Frazier said it wasn't the same bag, Richard.  Deal with it.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2018, 04:33:52 AM »
As did the WC before them, the LNers constantly claim that Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the paper bag they had seen Oswald carry. 

I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.

Offline Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2018, 07:25:27 AM »
I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.

My God! That would be about "rifle size"? Was that after one of the boys at the Paine?s contacted Sweat at HQ about Oswald?s rooming house phone number?

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2018, 09:06:37 AM »

I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.


It follows that you must also think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long. Do you, Tim?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2018, 03:35:02 AM »
My God! That would be about "rifle size"? Was that after one of the boys at the Paine?s contacted Sweat at HQ about Oswald?s rooming house phone number?

I'm sorry Colin, I'm not familiar with that factoid. Could you elaborate please/

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack
« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2018, 03:39:25 AM »
It follows that you must also think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long. Do you, Tim?

Why would I think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long? Because of the way that Frazier said he thought Oswald carried the package? Try placing one end of a 27 inch long piece of 2 x 4 under your right armpit while cupping the other end in the palm of your right hand. Let me know how you make out.