JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on June 23, 2026, 12:23:35 PM
-
On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 39, a Tour of the J.D. Tippit Murder Scene with Bill Brown.
We go on location to Oak Cliff with Tippit expert Bill Brown.
-
I was a bit disappointed when I went on Google Earth a year or two ago and discovered the entire neighborhood around 10th and Patton had been razed and replaced with modern houses. It also appeared a new school had been built that cutoff 10th St from Beckley. It looks much different than it did when I visited it in 2008. All the old houses were still standing, probably much the way it looked in 1963. I guess it's unrealistic to think neighborhoods aren't going to change over 60 years.
I had the same feeling when I visited my old home town of Omaha a few years ago. The neighborhood I grew up in was largely the same but so much nearby it had changed dramatically.
-
I very much enjoyed seeing Bill Brown's latest (2026) tour around the J.D. Tippit murder site. Great info. About the only thing I'd feel compelled to add would be this common-sense observation that I wrote in 2011 concerning eyewitness Domingo Benavides:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEda7o6EU97GsTE-C9U5ZRTvJpraM1Zue5mIrk-nyjH5w8yIhtJf7fe64ajYr1ptnCG_UhargYaBk5B9RA8rYOGO8V-1ge6MtOpgtWFOKCslksjRiPT-MWJzHMNSqIuwJ1zgaU8TaDifBqzSMCxy65coGgY7R_MJyO6dFNuwMDqvJKGt4HzyIYgYUdlc/s827/DVP-Blog-Post.png)
More Tippit Talk:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
-
I very much enjoyed seeing Bill Brown's latest (2026) tour around the J.D. Tippit murder site. Great info. About the only thing I'd feel compelled to add would be this common-sense observation that I wrote in 2011 concerning eyewitness Domingo Benavides:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEda7o6EU97GsTE-C9U5ZRTvJpraM1Zue5mIrk-nyjH5w8yIhtJf7fe64ajYr1ptnCG_UhargYaBk5B9RA8rYOGO8V-1ge6MtOpgtWFOKCslksjRiPT-MWJzHMNSqIuwJ1zgaU8TaDifBqzSMCxy65coGgY7R_MJyO6dFNuwMDqvJKGt4HzyIYgYUdlc/s827/DVP-Blog-Post.png)
More Tippit Talk:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
Thanks David.
-
Good presentation, but not quite up there with the legend Michael Brownlow yet. Need to jazz things up. Need more pazazz :D
-
Good presentation, but not quite up there with the legend Michael Brownlow yet. Need to jazz things up. Need more pazazz :D
Yes, I need to tell a few porky pies and when challenged on them, simply claim I saw proof in the Dallas Police city records.
-
Yes, I need to tell a few porky pies and when challenged on them, simply claim I saw proof in the Dallas Police city records.
Or present a fake "Ripley's believe it or not" affidavit and if that doesn't work, just say the witness was wrong and you know better.
Oh wait,,, there's another option. Just simply refuse to answer a question and run away in silence.
-
Or present a fake "Ripley's believe it or not" affidavit and if that doesn't work, just say the witness was wrong and you know better.
Oh wait,,, there's another option. Just simply refuse to answer a question and run away in silence.
A fake Ripley's affidavit? How so?
-
A fake Ripley's affidavit? How so?
Oops, I forgot that playing dumb is also an option. Thanks for reminding me.
-
Oops, I forgot that playing dumb is also an option. Thanks for reminding me.
If you don't want to explain how the affidavit is fake, that's fine.
-
If you don't want to explain how the affidavit is fake, that's fine.
In april, I already told you that they were fakes. You claimed that you already had made an attempt to verify, which of course means you were not sure yourself and nevertheless had presented them as being authentic.
I have no need to lie. Also, I have pics. Not that you'll ever see them.
As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish. I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary. I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car. You called them fakes. That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.
Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits). If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.
How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?
It has been three months since that and you still haven't told us what the result of your "verification" is.
Instead, you play dumb and simply go back to pretending the affidavits are authentic, so you can once again ask for them to be proven fakes.
I have no need for hypocrisy here. I have indeed shown a statement (signed, in fact) by Frazier where he acknowledges that the rifle was in the bag, i.e. the bag was large enough for the rifle, i.e. the bag couldn't have been carried the way Frazier described.
Hilarious.
I'm not going to get into a "prove it's fake" conversation. If you want people to believe that Frazier actually would admit in a real affidavit that he lied to the police and the WC, have at it!
The next time you see him (if you ever saw him to begin with) tell him about your "find" at Ripley's believe it or not and see how he responds.
-
In april, I already told you that they were fakes. You claimed that you already had made an attempt to verify, which of course means you were not sure yourself and nevertheless had presented them as being authentic.
It has been three months since that and you still haven't told us what the result of your "verification" is.
Instead, you play dumb and simply go back to pretending the affidavits are authentic, so you can once again ask for them to be proven fakes.
You "told" me they were fakes? Well they must be fakes then.
I had dinner with Buell Frazier just last month. Along with Frank Badalson, we're still in the process of verifying their authenticity, not that I owe you an explanation at all.
-
You "told" me they were fakes? Well they must be fakes then.
I had dinner with Buell Frazier just last month. Along with Frank Badalson, we're still in the process of verifying their authenticity, not that I owe you an explanation at all.
You "told" me they were fakes? Well they must be fakes then.
Yes, I told you they were fakes and they are.
I had dinner with Buell Frazier just last month.
Wow, you had pizza with him, three months ago, and now you had dinner. You two must really be getting best buddies then....
Along with Frank Badalson, we're still in the process of verifying their authenticity, not that I owe you an explanation at all.
Still in the process of verifying? Really, when all you needed to do is ask Frazier while having dinner with him? Yeah right
You really need to do better if you want to weasel out of this one.... :D
-
The two Ripley's affidavits that are allegedly by Frazier are fake. (paraphrased)
Handwriting-wise, the signatures on the 22 October 1964 bill of sale and the 22 October 1964 affidavit that Ripley's has are identical to the signature on the affidavit that was signed in front of notary public Mary Rattan on 22 November 1963.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338255/m1/1/
https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/buell-wesley-frazier-s-car
-
Handwriting-wise, the signatures on the 22 October 1964 bill of sale and the 22 October 1964 affidavit that Ripley's has are identical to the signature on the affidavit that was signed in front of notary public Mary Rattan on 22 November 1963.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338255/m1/1/
https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/buell-wesley-frazier-s-car
First of all, why do you represent something I've never written as a fake quote?
Secondly, since when are you a handwriting expert?
Thirdly, you might want to compare the Mary Rattan affidavit, dated 22 November 1963, with the fake one which doesn't even identify the "notary"
But there's an easy solution; Bill could simply ask new best friend Frazier to confirm the Ripley's "affidavits" to be authentic.... so why doesn't he?
-
Compare the Mary Rattan affidavit, dated 22 November 1963, with the fake one which doesn't even identify the "notary"
Is the notary's signature legible?
-
First of all, why do you represent something I've never written as a fake quote?
Secondly, since when are you a handwriting expert?
Thirdly, you might want to compare the Mary Rattan affidavit, dated 22 November 1963, with the fake one which doesn't even identify the "notary"
But there's an easy solution; Bill could simply ask new best friend Frazier to confirm the Ripley's "affidavits" to be authentic.... so why doesn't he?
First, the Ripley's affidavit, which you claim is fake (without support), does indeed "identify the notary". The signature is there for all to see. We have verified that the I.O. Fowler was a notary in Texas at the time. We know his full name and where he worked, etc... More to come (once we have all of our ducks in a row).
Last month, we did confront Frazier with the affidavits. More to come on that, too.
Patience Grasshopper. And stop being so fcukin' hateful.
-
Patients Grasshopper. And stop being so fcukin' hateful.
Bill,
He probably is a patient, but I think you meant to say "patience."
-- Tom
-
First, the Ripley's affidavit, which you claim is fake (without support), does indeed "identify the notary". The signature is there for all to see. We have verified that the I.O. Fowler was a notary in Texas at the time. We know his full name and where he worked, etc... More to come (once we have all of our ducks in a row).
Last month, we did confront Frazier with the affidavits. More to come on that, too.
Patients Grasshopper. And stop being so fcukin' hateful.
You've already had three months to verify....
You sound like Trump. Stop being evasive and delaying and simply present the evidence that the "affidavits" are authentic!
The mere fact that you feel that holding you to the same standard you constantly demand from others is being hateful says everything anybody needs to know about you.
-
Bill,
He probably is a patient, but I think you meant to say "patience."
-- Tom
Yessir. Gotta love autocorrect.
-
You've already had three months to verify....
You sound like Trump. Stop being evasive and delaying and simply present the evidence that the "affidavits" are authentic!
The mere fact that you feel that holding you to the same standard you constantly demand from others is being hateful says everything anybody needs to know about you.
"three months to verify".
I'll work on my own timeline, thanks.
-
"three months to verify".
I'll work on my own timeline, thanks.
Oh well, just another long wait for nothing.....
-
Oh well, just another long wait for nothing.....
Who's saying your dumb Bahookie has to wait?
Instead of criticizing the work of someone who is actually getting something done (before having even seen the work, no less), why not do something yourself?
Troll. But we already knew that.
-
Who's saying your dumb Bahookie has to wait?
Instead of criticizing the work of someone who is actually getting something done (before having even seen the work, no less), why not do something yourself?
Troll. But we already knew that.
Oh. poor Billy is upset, because he gets called out to present evidence he can't provide. What a loser!
And btw, you haven't gotten anything done. This is not the first time that I have caught you in a lie and it won't be the last.
-
Oh. poor Billy is upset, because he gets called out to present evidence he can't provide. What a loser!
And btw, you haven't gotten anything done. This is not the first time that I have caught you in a lie and it won't be the last.
It's a process. It's taking time. Once everything is finished, it'll get posted. Could be another month; could be another year. Hold your breath, please.
-
Who's saying your dumb Bahookie has to wait?
You did:
It's a process. It's taking time. Once everything is finished, it'll get posted. Could be another month; could be another year. Hold your breath, please.
I don't think holding my breath is an option. I'll be long dead before you produce the evidence to show the Ripley's "affidavits" are authentic.
-
You did:
I don't think holding my breath is an option. I'll be long dead before you produce the evidence to show the Ripley's "affidavits" are authentic.
"The Sledgehammer and the Sideline Critic"
-
It's a process. It's taking time. Once everything is finished, it'll get posted. Could be another month; could be another year. Hold your breath, please.
The topic of the Ripley's "affidavits" has been discussed several times in the past. I actually found one of my own posts from 2018.
"The Sledgehammer and the Sideline Critic"
So, are we now to conclude that the ego driven, selfappointed so-called "Sledgehammer" wasn't aware of these previous discussions, thus showing an absolute lack of basic knowledge about the topic?
So much for "sideline critic" :D
-
The topic of the Ripley's "affidavits" has been discussed several times in the past. I actually found one of my own posts from 2018.
So, are we now to conclude that the ego driven, selfappointed so-called "Sledgehammer" wasn't aware of these previous discussions, thus showing an absolute lack of basic knowledge about the topic?
So much for "sideline critic" :D
You're a troll.
What do previous discussions on the Ripley's affidavits have to do with me, my couple of dinners with Buell Frazier and my current work (along with Frank Badalson) of getting the affidavits authenticated?
And you've been aware of these affidavits for eight years now and haven't done a thing. Got it. Thanks.
-
You're a troll.
What do previous discussions on the Ripley's affidavits have to do with me, my couple of dinners with Buell Frazier and my current work (along with Frank Badalson) of getting the affidavits authenticated?
And you've been aware of these affidavits for eight years now and haven't done a thing. Got it. Thanks.
What do previous discussions on the Ripley's affidavits have to do with me
Apparently nothing, because you have shown yourself to be clueless
And you've been aware of these affidavits for eight years now and haven't done a thing. Got it. Thanks.
What in the world do you think I should have done?
Oh wait... as a die hard LN you expect others to prove that the "evidence" you present is false, right? Any plans of returning to the real world any time soon?
Try for once to prove that the evidence is authentic. It might help you to deal with your ignorance.
my couple of dinners with Buell Frazier
Aha... so first you only ate pizza with Frazier and now it's already a "couple of dinners" :D
my current work (along with Frank Badalson) of getting the affidavits authenticated?
Your current work? Don't make me laugh.... All you need to do to find out is ask Frazier, during one of those dinners, or get in touch with Ripley's.
It's easy, it only took me one phone call several years ago.
-
What do previous discussions on the Ripley's affidavits have to do with me
Apparently nothing, because you have shown yourself to be clueless
And you've been aware of these affidavits for eight years now and haven't done a thing. Got it. Thanks.
What in the world do you think I should have done?
Oh wait... as a die hard LN you expect others to prove that the "evidence" you present is false, right? Any plans of returning to the real world any time soon?
Try for once to prove that the evidence is authentic. It might help you to deal with your ignorance.
my couple of dinners with Buell Frazier
Aha... so first you only ate pizza with Frazier and now it's already a "couple of dinners" :D
my current work (along with Frank Badalson) of getting the affidavits authenticated?
Your current work? Don't make me laugh.... All you need to do to find out is ask Frazier, during one of those dinners, or get in touch with Ripley's.
It's easy, it only took me one phone call several years ago.
Apparently nothing, because you have shown yourself to be clueless
Not at all.
What in the world do you think I should have done?
Oh wait... as a die hard LN you expect others to prove that the "evidence" you present is false, right? Any plans of returning to the real world any time soon?
Try for once to prove that the evidence is authentic. It might help you to deal with your ignorance.
That's exactly what I'm in the process of trying to do, Dumb Bahookie.
Aha... so first you only ate pizza with Frazier and now it's already a "couple of dinners"
Correct. Pizza with him back in November and, well, pizza again with him last month, which is when Frank and I presented him with the Ripley's affidavits, Sideline Critic.
Your current work? Don't make me laugh.... All you need to do to find out is ask Frazier, during one of those dinners, or get in touch with Ripley's.
That you believe that is "all you need to do" tells me all I really need to know about your (lack of) level of research.
We did indeed ask Frazier. Since then, we've verified the notary, i.e. his full name, where he lived, where he worked, how long he as a notary, etc... We need to be sure he actually was a notary versus a fake name. We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis. Of course, it would be better to have the actual document as opposed to a copy. But still, we're trying it, nevertheless.
This is real research. It takes time, unfortunately. And we do indeed plan on coming forth with ALL findings, good, bad or indifferent. But wait. You already know about real research. You made a phone call.
-
Not at all.
That's exactly what I'm in the process of trying to do, Dumb Bahookie.
Correct. Pizza with him back in November and, well, pizza again with him last month, which is when Frank and I presented him with the Ripley's affidavits, Sideline Critic.
That you believe that is "all you need to do" tells me all I really need to know about your (lack of) level of research.
We did indeed ask Frazier. Since then, we've verified the notary, i.e. his full name, where he lived, where he worked, how long he as a notary, etc... We need to be sure he actually was a notary versus a fake name. We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis. Of course, it would be better to have the actual document as opposed to a copy. But still, we're trying it, nevertheless.
This is real research. It takes time, unfortunately. And we do indeed plan on coming forth with ALL findings, good, bad or indifferent. But wait. You already know about real research. You made a phone call.
We did indeed ask Frazier.
And what did he say?
Since then, we've verified the notary, i.e. his full name, where he lived, where he worked, how long he as a notary, etc... We need to be sure he actually was a notary versus a fake name. We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis. Of course, it would be better to have the actual document as opposed to a copy. But still, we're trying it, nevertheless.
If Frazier had confirmed that the affidavits are authentic, you wouldn't need to verify anything else, so I'm taking this comment as confirmation that Frazier denied the authenticity and you are not happy about it.
We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis.
Did you get notarized samples of Frazier's signature for comparison? Normally, a court appointed expert requires between 10 and 15 samples, right? And are you going to publish the report of the handwriting expert? You know, stuff like flowing pen movements, typical loops in certain letters etc....
This is real research. It takes time, unfortunately. And we do indeed plan on coming forth with ALL findings, good, bad or indifferent. But wait. You already know about real research. You made a phone call.
As Ripley's has the originals, they are the primary source. Yes, I made a phone call, but you don't know what happened after that. All you can do is make assumptions and babble about "real research", when in reality you have shown time after time that the only "research" you actually do is read Dale Myers book.
-
We did indeed ask Frazier.
And what did he say?
Since then, we've verified the notary, i.e. his full name, where he lived, where he worked, how long he as a notary, etc... We need to be sure he actually was a notary versus a fake name. We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis. Of course, it would be better to have the actual document as opposed to a copy. But still, we're trying it, nevertheless.
If Frazier had confirmed that the affidavits are authentic, you wouldn't need to verify anything else, so I'm taking this comment as confirmation that Frazier denied the authenticity and you are not happy about it.
We're subjecting the Frazier signature on the affidavit to handwriting analysis.
Did you get notarized samples of Frazier's signature for comparison? Normally, a court appointed expert requires between 10 and 15 samples, right? And are you going to publish the report of the handwriting expert? You know, stuff like flowing pen movements, typical loops in certain letters etc....
This is real research. It takes time, unfortunately. And we do indeed plan on coming forth with ALL findings, good, bad or indifferent. But wait. You already know about real research. You made a phone call.
As Ripley's has the originals, they are the primary source. Yes, I made a phone call, but you don't know what happened after that. All you can do is make assumptions and babble about "real research", when in reality you have shown time after time that the only "research" you actually do is read Dale Myers book.
Frazier said he has never seen those documents before. As for the rest, how about you wait and see?
You want to criticize me over "With Malice", yet you literally ran the other way when I challenged you to a live debate. There are many podcasts and Youtube channels which would host such a thing. In a live, real-time debate, I wouldn't be able to run off and use that book as a reference while you and the host hold for a few minutes. Right?
And yes, we have known notarized Frazier signatures for comparison purposes. Duh.
You're just going to have to wait and see. Or you can act like a dickhead.
-
I have now blocked Martin Weidmann. I've been a member here since 2008 and this is the first time I've blocked anyone.
If he somehow decides to take me up on my challenge to a debate (yeah right), could someone please let me know? Thanks.
-
Frazier said he has never seen those documents before. As for the rest, how about you wait and see?
You want to criticize me over "With Malice", yet you literally ran the other way when I challenged you to a live debate. There are many podcasts and Youtube channels which would host such a thing. In a live, real-time debate, I wouldn't be able to run off and use that book as a reference while you and the host hold for a few minutes. Right?
And yes, we have known notarized Frazier signatures for comparison purposes. Duh.
You're just going to have to wait and see. Or you can act like a dickhead.
Frazier said he has never seen those documents before. As for the rest, how about you wait and see?
And there it is. Frazier denied it and Billy doesn't like that.
You want to criticize me over "With Malice",
No... read the damned book as often as you like, just don't pretend it is "research"
In a live, real-time debate, I wouldn't be able to run off and use that book as a reference
I don't think you would need to use the book as a reference, as long as you can control the conversation. You have been dealing with this stuff for a great number of years and most likely have the details of your preferred narrative in your head, just like religious zealots can quote any part of the bible. Where it gets tricky is when you are confronted with different points of view that undercut what you are saying and for which you don't have an answer. History shows that rather than entering into an honest and open discussion and accepting that you might be wrong about some details, you will instantly come up with denials and start making up stuff which is where a live debate loses it's value and becomes a mere contest in which your ego will do anything to win. It has very little to do with the facts.
And yes, we have known notarized Frazier signatures for comparison purposes. Duh.
That would be great, if it were true, but I seriously doubt it. But I could be wrong. Why don't you post just one of those signatures? Would be a perfect way to shut me up, right?
I have now blocked Martin Weidmann. I've been a member here since 2008 and this is the first time I've blocked anyone.
If he somehow decides to take me up on my challenge to a debate (yeah right), could someone please let me know? Thanks.
I have now blocked Martin Weidmann.
Insults didn't work, so now Billy is running.... Go figure!
The "Sledgehammer" bully has turned into a cry baby who can't handle being wrong about the smallest detail :D
-
Let's go back to a conversation in the "The Brown Paper Bag" thread.
Translation: When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.
I found that "evidence" at the Ripley "believe or not" website years ago, but feel free to prove that the documents are authentic.
Point being, in October of '64, Buell Frazier acknowledged that the assassination weapon was in the package and his car transported the rifle to the Depository building. He even says that Oswald finalized his plans to carry out the assassination in that car.
Like it or not, Frazier states, in the affidavit, that the rifle was in the bag and therefore by default he is telling you that the bag was large enough.
No one cares what or when you found anything.
Along with Frank Badalson, I had pizza with Buell Frazier and Dave Perry last November. There's nothing fake about the affidavits.
Should be easy to prove it then. Just ask Buell to confirm it. Beyond that, nobody cares who you claim to have eaten pizza with.
Btw; Frazier and/or the notary didn't know that Erwin was actually Irving?
And what was the notary's name exactly? The signature isn't very clear.
Surely you've heard Buell Frazier talk before, with that VERY strong accent. The fact that the affidavit says "Erwin" instead of Irving should make it obvious to you that Frazier was talking as the transcriber was typing it out. Use your common sense.
As for the pizza, my point was that we talked about the affidavit. Out of respect for Dave Perry (Buell's friend and who set up the pizza night), I won't tell you what was said. However, I had a video call with Perry last Monday and I'm trying to get Perry to agree to release the details of the conversation with Frazier.
This is what you'd call FREAL research, i.e. going straight to the horse's mouth (as opposed to doing what YOU do, which is simply call it fake and ignore it).
This exchange tells us several things;
First of all, Bill "I'm a real researcher" Brown instantly jumped to the conclusion that the Ripley's "affidavits" were authentic.
When his claim failed to persuade, he became his usual arrogant self and tried an appeal to authority by mentioning that he had eaten pizza with Frazier.
He clearly implied (without actually saying so) that Frazier had confirmed the authenticity of the "affidavits" and, pretending to speak with some authority, he stated: "There's nothing fake about the affidavits."
When that still failed to persuade, he claimed that while eating pizza "we talked about the affidavit" but he refused to disclose what had been said. He then got back on his high horse and claimed that he was doing "real research" by "going straight to the horse's mouth"
Back in april, Bill refused to tell us about his conversation with Frazier, but now, only three months later he freely confirmed in this thread that Frazier had in fact denied ever seeing those "affidavits". This means that Bill must have known for some time that "the horse's mouth" had rejected the "affidavits", but his ego wouldn't allow him to just simply accept that he got it wrong. So, now he clearly doesn't believe Frazier and is desperately trying to find arguments to somehow declare the "affidavits" authentic after all.
And that brings it back to the first quote posted in this post;
Translation: When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.
Translation: When you don't like what the WITNESS tells you, just call him mistaken and maintain that the documents are authentic nevertheless.
You've got to love those "real researchers" Thumb1: