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's "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 start making up stuff and denials and that's 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!

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.

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"   

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 Ass.

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. 

Humm, well, as we have seen, I had to explain to you that, unlike pregnancy, bullet angles are never an all-or-nothing proposition, because you made the cringe-worthy argument that "slightly horizontal" is like "slightly pregnant," a bogus analogy that not even a retarded teenager would make.

This was as bad and discrediting as your jaw-dropping argument from a few days earlier in which you compared a supersonic bullet hitting an object sideways with a car "sliding sideways into a guard rail." It would be hard to imagine a more blundering, bogus, and unintelligent analogy.

In order to dumb it down for you any more than I did, I would have had to draw pictures for you but I don't have any crayons.

Are you seriously asking this question in 2026? Have you never seen a 1963 picture of Dealey Plaza? Are you truly unable to conceive of a shooting location that would have produced a slightly horizontal angle of impact on Connally's back? Really?   

Oh, I can figure out an angle. I just want YOU to tell me where such a shot could have come from. I want you to be the one to make yourself look foolish.

I think the bullet could have simply struck at a slightly horizontal angle, but, anyway, bullets can yaw for a number of reasons that don't involve hitting something first. Bullets can yaw because of muzzle blast turbulence (when high-pressure propellant gases escape the muzzle unevenly, they can push against the base of the bullet as it clears the barrel and induce a slight yaw), aerodynamic forces acting on an asymmetrical center of mass (which can happen with spitzer bullets), and crosswinds inducing gyroscopic precession (the wind was gusting off and on in the plaza).

As the Haags demonstrated on the Nova presentation, the Carcano bullet is cylindrical in shape with a rounded noise. As such, it maintains tight contact with the inside of the barrel which gives it a tremendous amount of stability and very little yaw as it exits the muzzle. I fully expect you to now pretend you know more about ballistics than the Haags.

You keep avoiding the key point that a 1.5-cm-wide wound could not have been caused by a bullet traveling sideways unless the bullet had been only 1.4 to 1.5 cm in width. Oswald's alleged ammo was twice that length.

Now you are the one pretending yaw is either all or nothing. The bullet did not have to be traveling with its axis completely perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Also, a bullet that was markedly yawing, but not yawing quite enough to hit sideways (i.e., not 90 degrees), would not have caused a wound that was only 1.5 cm in width. A markedly yawing bullet would have created a wound that was well over 2.0 cm in width. 

This is comical. A yawing bullet could produce any width up to the length of the bullet depending on the amount of yaw. /quote]

You see, these are the reasons that your fellow SBT believers here, along with Myers, Lattimer, and Posner, dishonestly (or blunderingly) cite the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. They understand that a bullet flying sideways or markedly yawing would not have made a wound that was only 1.5 in width. But you're such a fringe, poorly read SBT believer that you don't even know this much. [/quote]

You really do need people to draw pictures for you so you can understand.

LOL! Seriously? When passing through soft tissue, bullets can veer slightly in any direction, and they can certainly change course after they smash a rib bone. Do you ever actually stop and think about your arguments before you post them? Did you forget that the bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone after it entered the chest?

That would be a fair point if the bullet hit bone on the way in, not the way out.

Furthermore, if we look at Z234, the frame selected by Connally himself as the moment of impact, we see his torso is turned to the right by about 10 degrees, which could explain the slight elongation of the back wound by itself, just as the fact that JFK's head rotation could explain why the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 cm in width.

You continue to pretend JBC's right arm didn't suddenly flip upward in response to the bullet striking his wrist about Z222. You seem to think the arm flip was in anticipation of the bullet hitting him about a half second later.

Another howler. You simply ignored the point and repeated your specious theory. A bullet tumbling as you describe is not going to create a narrow wound path. Do you just lack the capacity to understand this self-evident point? Even when the chest-wound bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone, it did so while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding tissue, as Dr. Shaw noted. How can you not grasp this point?

Here again, you seem to need someone to draw pictures for you to understand. The axis of a tumbling bullet is constantly changing orientation. Maybe it would help if I used smaller words.

Just go look at photos or slow-motion footage of bullets traveling through ballistics gelatin. Naturally, when the bullet is markedly yawing, it creates a wide path through the gelatin, but it creates a narrow path when it is not markedly yawing. I mean, most people would say, "Well, yeah, duh, of course!" But you keep acting like you don't understand this.

As the Haags demonstrated, a bullet passing through ballistic gel makes a wide channel, but the channel then collapses back on itself after the bullet passes. That's why they also used ballistic soap which does not collapse and maintains the full width of the channel.

You know, when you get on here and pretend not to understand such basic, self-evident facts, you show that you're either unserious and unreliable or that you are sorely lacking in essential comprehension and reasoning skills.

You pretend the silly things you propose are facts. It's the only way to support your nutty conclusions.

   Bump - Thought this would be helpful