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"
Recent Posts