Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Alan Ford]

Thanks for the info, Richard.

If you're right and a CTer named Alan Ford believes all the fantastic things you just suggested, then

Yikes, it seems Mr Von Pein really does wish to stand by his Soopah-Doopah-Time-Travel-Explanation-----------------

The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)

 

[John Iacoletti]

Plus, if any CTers believe the things Richard Smith posted above, it also would mean that those CTers believe Ruth Paine's unwrapping-the-curtain-rods-right-on-the-spot-in-her-own-garage-in-front-of-Warren-Commission-counsel testimony is a complete fraud and was manufactured by the WC and/or Ruth Paine from whole cloth.

Such a belief about Mrs. Paine is silly beyond tolerance.

What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here".  Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15.  And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?

[David Von Pein]

What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here".  Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15.  And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?

But by the same token, CTers love to paint each and every "inconsistency" with their conspiracy brush. No matter what it is. And, when combining the witness statements and the various official documents connected to the case, there were, indeed, a number of inconsistencies.

The "2-15-63" date written on the Klein's deposit ticket would be yet another one. But that was a KLEIN'S error, while the "inconsistency" relating to the CSSS document is an error made by the DALLAS POLICE. So when we discuss just those two items, how can anyone try to say those two "inconsistencies" are related in any way? Reasonably speaking, they can't.

I am kind of curious, though, as to why two different versions of that Crime Scene Search Section document exist.

[Martin Weidmann]

What are the odds that everything the LNs don't like or can't explain in the evidence is an "error" or an "honest mistake" and everything they do like can never be questioned as it is "beyond doubt"?

[David Von Pein]

[Jerry Freeman]

What are the odds that everything the LNs don't like or can't explain in the evidence is an "error" or an "honest mistake" and everything they do like can never be questioned as it is "beyond doubt"?

I have asked that very same question more than twice. Hold not your breath.

[Bill Chapman]

Should read----Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible anal.

Takeaway du jour: Two nerd heads are not better than one; rather, they are merely twice as dorky

Joke du jour
(Aka 'Birds of a Feather')


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next