I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps.
People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly. Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall. I've experienced many times when somebody has "absolutely told me to the whole story" only to hear additions and corrections to that story months later.
It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked.
Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony.
And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it. You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument.
Not bad for a 10 year old, hey?
"People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless."So, I've presented my argument for the second time and, once again, you make no critique or present no counter-argument. Instead you provide this bland, sweeping, irrelevant statement.
" Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly."Again, another meaningless statement but this time you could hardly be more wrong. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make it clear he was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, that he heard shots, that he witnessed some of the aftermath of the assassination and many, many more things.
The point is this - I am arguing that one of the things that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make clear is that he did not leave the front steps before going inside the TSBD after the assassination. The reason I am arguing this is to highlight how different Frazier's later accounts are in comparison to his early statements. If you agree with my point, all well and good. If you don't why not present a case to demonstrate why you don't.
"Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall."Again, what you are saying seems factually correct but it is irrelevant as far as the discussion is concerned.
"It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked."Again, bland, sweeping, irrelevant statements.
"Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony."Of course my interpretation is based on what's in Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony!
I mean, what is the point of this statement? What else should I be basing my interpretation of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony on?
"And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it."
Again, what you're saying seems factually correct but it's totally irrelevant.
"You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument."
I've made your case??
What case? You've presented no case. Just a series of meaningless statements.
Please present a case.
Just to clarify - only a
part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony deals with his movement on the steps.
I have analysed this
part of his statements.
I have ignored parts of his statements that are not concerned with his movements on the steps.
Hence, "a partial analysis of Frazier's early statements".
You've misunderstood this, haven't you?
Frazier's early statements are clear - he does not move from the front steps before going back inside the TSBD.
This is the point being argued.
"Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? "I agree.