Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 93750 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #192 on: October 02, 2018, 05:34:36 PM »
Advertisement
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument.  So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything.  Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination.

And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.

Quote
  It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier.

No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.

Quote
  It exists.

So does the soda bottle.  Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.

Quote
Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.

Was one ever looked for?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?

Quote
  It can't be accounted for in any way.  Oswald denied carrying it.

False again.  Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #192 on: October 02, 2018, 05:34:36 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #193 on: October 02, 2018, 06:33:04 PM »
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning.  He claimed that he did carry his lunch.  Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch.  If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it.  Good grief.  There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.  It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this.  Not even most fringe kooks deny this.   Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty. 

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #194 on: October 02, 2018, 06:46:08 PM »
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning.  He claimed that he did carry his lunch.  Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch.  If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it.  Good grief.  There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.  It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this.  Not even most fringe kooks deny this.   Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.

"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it."

There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #194 on: October 02, 2018, 06:46:08 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #195 on: October 02, 2018, 06:47:30 PM »
If Oswald  was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.

You are on the verge of learning something!  So now ask yourself who has the greater incentive to lie about Oswald carrying a long bag that morning?  It boils down to this.  If the bag contained a rifle used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every incentive to lie about it.  If it contained curtain rods or some non-incriminatory item, then Oswald had every incentive to confirm that he carried such a bag and direct the police to it to clear himself.  Good so far?  Seems like common sense.  Now if Frazier is lying and made up the bag story, what are his incentives?  They seem to be non-existent and even contrary to his own interests.  If he is somehow being coerced into lying by the authorities to put the rifle in Oswald's hands, then why doesn't he say the bag is long enough to contain the rifle?  The entire purpose of such a lie in that scenario.  What good would it do the fantasy conspirators to put a bag too short to carry the rifle in Oswald's possession?  None.  It doesn't add up.  So the only other option is that Frazier just made the entire story up.  There is no good narrative to explain that.  If anything, his incentives would be to distance himself from having driven the assassin and his rifle not make up a story in which Oswald has a long, unexplained package with him that morning.  Connect the dots and there is one logical scenario as supported by the evidence.  Oswald carried a long package that morning as witnessed by Frazier.  Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated its length.  We know that because the bag was found.  It was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.  That is why Oswald lies about it.   All the stars align. 
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 06:50:00 PM by Richard Smith »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #196 on: October 02, 2018, 06:48:42 PM »
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH.  Oswald told him he was going to buy it."

There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.

I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #196 on: October 02, 2018, 06:48:42 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #197 on: October 02, 2018, 07:23:20 PM »
I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

Mr "Smith" Why do you hide behind an alias?    It simply verifies that you're not an honest person......

I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

I thought CTers believed Frazier?

This statement simply proves that your reasoning is flawed....( Which is something that any intelligent person following these debates is acutely aware of)   Ct's are NOT of one accord on every aspect of this case....However I believe that all CT's are bonded together under the knowledge that the Warren report is a CROCK!!. 

Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

Frazier's estimate of the bag length ( approximately 27 inches) does not have to be "trusted" or accepted without verification.   Linnie Mae Randle  corroborated the length of the sack that she and Frazier said they saw....Both of them said the sack was no longer than 28 inches long.

You really don't know much about this case do you Mr "Smith" ?


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #198 on: October 02, 2018, 07:39:01 PM »
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

So you're cherry picking what Fritz recalled 8 months later over what he recalled a few days later.  Because of course you are.

Quote
There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.

This is just your usual false bravado.  There is no evidence that CE142 is the bag that Frazier or Randle saw.  They said it was not.

Quote
Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.

No, it's just another example of how bogus your reasoning is.  Some object is found (eventually) on the 6th floor and from that you leap to Oswald carried it in that morning and it had a rifle in it.  It's special pleading because you don't leap to the conclusion that other objects on the 6th floor were related to the assassination, just because they were found on the 6th floor.

There's no need to discredit anything since your "evidence" is not actually evidence of anything at all.  You have a bag that nobody ever said they saw in Oswald's possession with no sign of a rifle ever having been in it.  So what?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #198 on: October 02, 2018, 07:39:01 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #199 on: October 02, 2018, 07:44:22 PM »
There's no reason to assume that either Frazier was lying or Oswald was lying.  Frazier saw a package.  Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package.  The only thing that doesn't align here is that "Richard" wants to just assume that the package was 38 inches long and contained a rifle, despite there being ZERO evidence for that.