Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Alan Ford]

If you begin with the dogmatic view (and it is dogmatic) that a conspiracy occurred and that Oswald was framed then you have to reverse engineer this evidence, these facts, these actions to fit into that conspiracy. So you have to have the CIA Sherlock Holmes joining up with the Dallas Police Department Keystone Cops. The conspirators are both brilliant and all powerful and resourceful and incompetent and illogical and neglectful. It has to be in order for your conspiracy to work, to make some sense.

You then have a type of conspiracy Rube Goldberg device or plan where a button is pushed and wheels turn and bells ring and balls roll down and fall and at the end of this long weird process JFK is dead and Oswald framed. But instead of bells and whistles and balls it's real human beings pulling this off. Now we know human beings don't operate like cogs or things; but the conspiracists think, indeed insist they do because this both all powerful and all incompetent "they" order them to do so. And these people, these cogs - unlike human beings in the real world - simply do what they are ordered to do. None objected to the plan, none refused to go along, none blew the whistle.

Superbly sophisticated stuff, Mr Galbraith! 

Now----------let's get back on topic, shall we?

What is Mr Steve M. Galbraith's explanation for what's on the document below?



 

[Martin Weidmann]

Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

[Alan Ford]

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin a another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

Excellent points, Mr Weidmann, thank you! 

Mr Von Pein has gone awfully quiet. Let's give him a friendly little prompt, shall we?

ALAN FORD SAID:

Two 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)

Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Richard Smith]

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.  Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.  But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect.   And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.

[Martin Weidmann]

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.  Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.  But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect.   And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.

You think, mr. Smarty pants?

Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.

Why would Day be part of the conspiracy? That he clearly was incompetent is another matter. When he produced a evidence card with allegedly Oswald's palm print on it, which he allegedly kept in his office without telling anybody for a week, in a case that involved the assassination of a President, he clearly demonstrated his incompetence.

But what Alan is showing you is a straight forward DPD document, on which Day signed for the receipt. He also signed for the release and confirmed his conclusion that the only print he found did not belong to Oswald. The real question that needs to be asked - and you won't be able to answer - is why the WC used a carbon copy of the receipt document with different release date on it.

So, mr Smarty pants, can you explain this?

[David Von Pein]

Agent Howlett may well have done just that, at least eventually.

But first, the problem posed by whoever had found the rods in the Depository (two curtain rods, marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) needed to be addressed. This person, if they kicked up a fuss and went public with their description of the two curtain rods they had found, could destroy trust in the official claim that Mr Oswald had not brought curtain rods to work.

And so a scheme to----------------
a) generate paperwork that would satisfy this witness that the curtain rods had been thoroughly examined and shown not to have been handled by Mr Oswald
b) generate insurance against any potential future public claims by the pesky Depository employee by placing into the official record two curtain rods, marked (as Ruth Paine Exhibits) with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6
---------------was hatched.

~Grin~

Says the man with the following hilariously kooky explanation of the crime lab document:

Two 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)

Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?

The March 15 date at the top of the document is (quite obviously) merely a mistake.

The "mistake" theory is far more believable than your cloak-and-dagger alternative, that's for sure. Your scenario requires numerous liars, including civilian witness Ruth Hyde Paine. My "mistake" theory requires zero liars.

[Alan Ford]

The March 15 date at the top of the document is (quite obviously) merely a mistake.

ALAN FORD SAID:

But a mistake for what date, Mr Von Pein? So far you have given us two different answers to this question, each of which has led you all the way into the realms of impossibility for the simple reason that the document contains not just dates but times also:

a) The Von Pein 23 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage

b) The Von Pein 24 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett

Are these two time-bending fantasies still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein? If so, and if you cannot bring yourself to consider any scenario involving deception on the part of those charged with investigating the assassination, then you're going to need to pivot fast to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes'....................

Do you wish to pivot to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes', Mr Von Pein? Or do you perhaps wish instead to pivot to the honest admission that this document has left you and your Warren Gullible pals (quite obviously) totally stumped?

 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Richard Smith]

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.

You think, mr. Smarty pants?

Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.

Why would Day be part of the conspiracy? That he clearly was incompetent is another matter. When he produced a evidence card with allegedly Oswald's palm print on it, which he allegedly kept in his office without telling anybody for a week, in a case that involved the assassination of a President, he clearly demonstrated his incompetence.

But what Alan is showing you is a straight forward DPD document, on which Day signed for the receipt. He also signed for the release and confirmed his conclusion that the only print he found did not belong to Oswald. The real question that needs to be asked - and you won't be able to answer - is why the WC used a carbon copy of the receipt document with different release date on it.

So, mr Smarty pants, can you explain this?

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?  I have no idea what the background story is for this document.  And neither do you or Alan.   All we can do is speculate.   And the explanation that the authorities brought Oswald's curtain rods to light of their own volition after suppressing those same curtain rods to frame him makes no sense for the reasons we have beaten to death.  How do they get folks who were not involved with conspiracy/frame up to go along with a cover up of these curtain rods as the ones from Paine's garage?  That doesn't add up.  In addition, the document has the same WC numbers that were assigned to the curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage.  That seems conclusive of which curtain rods are the subject of this document.  Why would your non-conspirators put the WC numbers of the Paine curtain rods on any curtain rods that they believe came from Oswald/TSBD?  Maybe Ruth Paine tells an WC investigator about the curtain rods.  They send someone out before her interview to test them for prints and put them back in place for her WC testimony.   When she says they have been there all along she means no one other than the investigators who are asking her about them have taken them from the garage.  She knows they already know the rods were removed to be tested for prints.  I can't prove it.  Pure speculation but so is everything else absent some additional information.  The default conclusion for any unexplained anomaly is not a vast conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald as suggested by Alan.  That is absurd.

If someone like Alan or yourself truly thought this document provided evidence that proves a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK instead of being the product of a hopeful defense attorney fantasy, then you would pursue that with the NY Times or perhaps contact Ruth Paine herself.  No such effort is ever taken, however.  Alan just posts it here over and over again.  What he expects to happen is unclear.