Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)  (Read 5231 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7541
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2019, 06:57:23 PM »
No, Buell Frazier's credibility has been damaged by his clear and blatant lie is all I am saying.

I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.

Quote
What did Frazier claim that is contrary to the physical and circumstantial evidence?

The length of the package that LHO brought into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3334
Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2019, 07:23:29 PM »
That's very silly.  How and why would anyone force Frazier to lie about seeing Oswald leaving after the assassination?


Don't play dumb...The cops were very direct with their threats against Frazier in his father's hospital room...He knew what the deal was and there are other examples of the cops intimidating witnesses with threats...

Frazier didn't necessarily "lie" when he kept his mouth shut about seeing Oswald come down Houston after exiting the rear...He just kept his mouth shut...The obvious reason they wanted this kept quiet is because Shelley probably helped Oswald out the back exit in order to aid him past the cordon...They didn't want to have to explain how Oswald was allowed to leave after he was stopped at the front...If you had a more honest and credible approach you would realize there is zero police witnessing of Oswald being stopped at the front...The reason for this silence is they were trying not to reveal that Oswald got out after he was stopped and the don't want to give the details how...The reason Oswald said he went out with Bill Shelley in front is because he went out via the back and wanted to cover it up...A more credibly seeking researcher would realize there were no witnesses to Oswald being out front with Shelley...   



 
It doesn't matter much whether Oswald exited out the front or somewhere else.


Just the opposite...It matters enormously and lends important detail to how Oswald exited and who helped him...It shows the authorities lied and were trying to cover up something incriminating...What silly casual indifference to obviously important evidence...


 
And why would Frazier suddenly volunteer this information later if he was under duress?  If they were going to coerce Frazier to lie it would be about something important like confirming that the bag Oswald carried that morning was large enough to contain the rifle.


Because ARRB had granted legal immunity by then...Frazier wasn't under duress when he spoke to Gary Mack...And a wise researcher would see Mack conspicuously failed to follow-through on this important evidence...

You haven't answered the point...You can't produce anyone who saw Oswald exit the front and we have evidence of Lovelady lying to Norman by saying he saw Oswald exit the front...Lovelady was obviously covering for his spook friend Shelley who had let Oswald out the back...Lovelady never told this lie directly to any committee or FBI because he knew he'd be held to the details and didn't want to risk being exposed...And they didn't ask him...


Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 942
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2019, 07:25:13 PM »
I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

I'm trying to determine if you are special pleading where Frazier is concerned, because a lot of witnesses made conflicting statements:  Marina, Givens, Brennan, Poe, Euins, Markham just to name a few.


Each one has to be taken as a unique instance and analyzed in context.

What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

here are a few:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html


The Commission has evaluated the evidence tending to show how Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766, was brought into the Depository Building, where it was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. In this connection the Commission considered (1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963, (2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage, (3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package, (4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired, and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 07:26:25 PM by Charles Collins »

Offline Steve Logan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2019, 07:47:23 PM »
Brian I've asked these questions multiple times and you have yet to answer them:

1. Where and when did Frazier state that he left the front steps?

2. If Frazier did not leave the front steps how did he "witness" Oswald walking on the side of the TSBD?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7541
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2019, 07:47:51 PM »
Don't play dumb...The cops were very direct with their threats against Frazier in his father's hospital room...

Yet another Doyle fabrication.  What "threats against Frazier in his father's hospital room"?

Quote
Frazier didn't necessarily "lie" when he kept his mouth shut about seeing Oswald come down Houston after exiting the rear...He just kept his mouth shut...The obvious reason they wanted this kept quiet is because Shelley probably helped Oswald out the back exit in order to aid him past the cordon...

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7541
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2019, 07:52:36 PM »
Each one has to be taken as a unique instance and analyzed in context.

What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

Quote
What "physical and circumstantial evidence" is contrary?

here are a few:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3334
Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2019, 07:58:29 PM »
Brian I've asked these questions multiple times and you have yet to answer them:

1. Where and when did Frazier state that he left the front steps?

2. If Frazier did not leave the front steps how did he "witness" Oswald walking on the side of the TSBD?


Frazier said he walked over to the corner...

You are asking aggressive questions because you are dodging answering what I posted...


Offline Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 942
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2019, 08:16:44 PM »
What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

What is the "context" for assuming that Frazier was lying (intentionally stating something he knew to be untrue) either time?  And why doesn't the same standard apply to say Marina?  Or do you also think Marina was a liar with no credibility?

The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie. And if the affidavit is not true, then it is a lie. Either way he is a liar.

The WC didn't know that CE 142 was the same bag that Frazier saw, and neither do you.

Frazier claims that it isn't. His claim is at odds with the circumstantial evidence that tends to show that it is. You can believe Buell Frazier if you wish. I am just pointing out that he is a liar. And that fact should be considered when deciding what evidence you choose to believe.

Offline Steve Logan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2019, 09:06:56 PM »

Frazier said he walked over to the corner...

You are asking aggressive questions because you are dodging answering what I posted...

When and where did Frazier state he walked over to the corner. It wasn't in his WC testimony. Was this in a phone interview? A Gary Mack interview? The Shaw trial? Where?


You can dodge a question but you haven't asked me one. How does one dodge what someone else posted?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7541
Re: Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2019, 09:17:46 PM »
The context is a sworn affidavit of 11/22/63 stating clearly that he "did not see LHO after about 11:00 AM today." That is either true or a lie. If it is true then his statement in the 7/13/2013 interview is a lie.

Really?  Do you define "lie" as any statement that is untrue, regardless of the person's intent?  That would be interesting...

Quote
Frazier claims that it isn't. His claim is at odds with the circumstantial evidence that tends to show that it is.

What circumstantial evidence tends to show that CE 142 is the bag that Frazier saw?  Just your supposition that it must be?

 

Mobile View