Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Colin Crow]

So back to the topic.

How does Frazier account for the 3 hour gap between leaving the TSBD and his apprehension at the hospital?

Who was it that mentioned the bag first? Him to Linnie May? Linnie May to him? Cops to him? Cops to Linnie May?

Why does his account of his arrest differ so much from the documentation? It was not Rose and Stovall who originally detained him.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for the follow-up info, Colin.

Montgomery doesn't have that window ledge in that CE142 paper bag, however.

But, then too, you don't believe for a second that the bag Leslie Montgomery is holding is CE142, do you?

And around we go again....

[David Von Pein]

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Your level of arrogance is astounding.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It certainly is no more astounding than your level of complete denial regarding Commission Exhibit No. 142.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with [it]. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. I didn't think you would dare answer my inquiry. What I got instead was the standard wishy-washy response from a conspiracist who probably knows the LN logic on this matter is perfectly sound and reasonable (and accurate), but can't admit it.

I can't say I blame you though for not wanting to answer my question. Because, as I said earlier, "whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier."


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.

You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is make assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And by the same token, with enough "assumptions and speculation", a conspiracy theorist can easily manage to get a double-murderer named Lee Oswald off the hook completely and pretend he was "just a patsy".

Thanks for the classic Pot/Kettle moment there, Martin.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Your childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think I insulted you, Martin. I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html

[David Von Pein]

Bonus Link of Common Sense & Reasonable Inferences:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html

[Martin Weidmann]

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Your level of arrogance is astounding.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It certainly is no more astounding than your level of complete denial regarding Commission Exhibit No. 142.

A meaningless statement

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with [it]. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. I didn't think you would dare answer my inquiry. What I got instead was the standard wishy-washy response from a conspiracist who probably knows the LN logic on this matter is perfectly sound and reasonable (and accurate), but can't admit it.

In your modest opinion, of course, right? 

I can't say I blame you though for not wanting to answer my question. Because, as I said earlier, "whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier."

Completely delusional. I did not answer your question for 2 reasons; (1) you wouldn't accept it anyway and, more importantly (2) I don't have to prove you wrong. It's the other way around.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.

You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is make assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And by the same token, with enough "assumptions and speculation", a conspiracy theorist can easily manage to get a double-murderer named Lee Oswald off the hook completely and pretend he was "just a patsy".

Thanks for the classic Pot/Kettle moment there, Martin.

Oh, poor boy did I hurt your feelings? The truth hurts... deal with it. I'm not defending Oswald. I couldn't care less if he did it or not. My only interest is finding out if the case against him as solid, and seeing what you have to offer, it's no way near conclusive, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to speculate about Oswald's guilt or innocence. I'm not his defense lawyer. But as you accuse him, you should at least be able to provide proof of his guilt. So far, however, all you seem to be doing is making baseless assumptions. Very weak indeed.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Your childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think I insulted you, Martin. I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html

I don't think I insulted you, Martin.

Of course you did.

I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)

Translation; you don't share my belief and I don't have the arguments to convince you and because of that you are not being reasonable, fair and can't evaluate evidence properly.

You've not only insulted me, but now you've also insulted my intelligence.

Btw, I notice this post is in the same format that you use on your blogs. I do not want my posts copied there, because I have noticed in the past that you have a habit of misrepresenting what was actually said and adding on comments to which I can not reply. I am not interested to be part of your propaganda and if I ever find any part of our discussion on your blog, I will take legal action against you.

PS. I've just checked, by the link you have provided, and found that you have already put parts of our conversation on your blog and you have edited my posts, without my knowledge or permission. I formally demand that you remove all those posts within 48 hours. Failure to do so will result in legal action against you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bonus Link of Common Sense & Reasonable Inferences:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html

Common sense and reasonable inferences is what LNs use when they don't have conclusive evidence to back up their theory.

[Richard Smith]

Try something new for once. This BS is getting boring.

Says the guy who is here night and day for years on end.  You should be embarrassed by the spanking you have taken on this thread.  I almost feel bad for you myself.  Almost.

[Colin Crow]

Thanks for the follow-up info, Colin.

Montgomery doesn't have that window ledge in that CE142 paper bag, however.

But, then too, you don't believe for a second that the bag Leslie Montgomery is holding is CE142, do you?

And around we go again....

I don’t know what was holding the bag up David. Maybe Montgomery gave it viagra. The 30” strip fits as a possibility. Wondering where it was entered into evidence. It does seem that on the day of the assassination that the right (not left) strip was removed. The left one was removed at a later date.

I do believe the bag Montgomery is holding is CE142. Why would I not?

PS what are your thoughts on Frazier's movements that afternoon? How do you explain the 3 hour gap?

PPS good to be having dialogue with you again.