Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't think these dorks know what a Proof of Concept study consists of

Alright "genius", then why don't you tell us what the feasibility outcome of this "study" is and how it was derived at?

[Bill Chapman]

What short bag?   

The one that got ever shorter re Buell & Linnie as 'you-show-me yours, I'll-show-you-mine' time loomed ever nearer at the 'kiss my arse/kiss 'n tell' WC hearings

[Bill Chapman]

Alright "genius", then why don't you tell us what the feasibility outcome of this "study" is and how it was derived at?

Still a dork, I see

[Charles Collins]

Frazier agreed that LHO could have had the bag in front of him. Not just that he couldn’t have seen it if it was. He agreed to the entire statement that Bugs made. That’s the difference that you refuse to accept.

Bugs didn't make a statement. He asked a question. What you fail to understand is that even if Frazier agreed that the bag could have been protruding out that still does not automatically mean that it was. And it most certainly doesn't mean that it was the bag that was found in the TSBD.


Frazier had in fact earlier testified, to another investigation, that he did not see the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit

What earlier investigation would that be?

You can believe in fairy tales about bags that never existed if you wish. I really don’t give a hoot.

What a silly comment. First of all, I don't believe in bags that never existed. I believe in credible evidence and two witnesses said that bag did exist. And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts. Go figure

Bugs didn't make a statement.

Read it again. The first sentence is a statement. The second sentence is the question.


What earlier investigation would that be?

Ask Jerry, he posted it.


I believe in credible evidence…

Like ghost bags that vanish without a trace?


And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts.

Not really, this started out as my response to another person. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I tend to ignore you whenever I can.

[Martin Weidmann]

Still a dork, I see

So you can't explain it. Why am I not surprised.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bugs didn't make a statement.

Read it again. The first sentence is a statement. The second sentence is the question.

 

What earlier investigation would that be?

Ask Jerry, he posted it.

So, you don't know? I asked you because I was pretty sure you didn't know. It seems I was right.

I believe in credible evidence…

Like ghost bags that vanish without a trace?

You have a strange kind of understanding of what credible evidence is....

And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts.

Not really, this started out as my response to another person. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I tend to ignore you whenever I can.

An understandable move on your part. Saves you from having to answer questions you can't answer and allows you to just run wild with self-serving assumptions and speculation, which you of course, rather foolishly, call 'evidence'.

[Charles Collins]

So, you don't know? I asked you because I was pretty sure you didn't know. It seems I was right.

You have a strange kind of understanding of what credible evidence is....

An understandable move on your part. Saves you from having to answer questions you can't answer and allows you to just run wild with self-serving assumptions and speculation, which you of course, rather foolishly, call 'evidence'.

A typical end to a discussion with you. You run out of relevant arguments and start attacking the messenger.

[Charles Collins]

What prevented you this time?

Not a thing. I said that it was my tendency, not an ironclad rule.