Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 51441 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #312 on: February 10, 2022, 07:53:38 PM »
Advertisement
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.

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?

Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.

I have no idea what the background story is for this document.  And neither do you or Alan.   All we can do is speculate.

Amazing, when it comes to photocopies of documents taken from a micro film you claim to know exactly what the background story is, and here you refuse to do the one thing you are good at; speculate!

Alan just posts it here over and over again.  What he expects to happen is unclear.

I don't know what Alan expects, but I for one would love to have a plausible explanation for the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of that document with different information on it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #312 on: February 10, 2022, 07:53:38 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5291
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #313 on: February 10, 2022, 08:04:46 PM »
So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?

Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.



LOL.  So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle.  And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]".  Better known as framing him!  But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald.  Actions completely at odd with one another.  And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion?  HA HA HA.  Keep them coming.  You are twisting like a pretzel.  The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others.  And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #314 on: February 10, 2022, 08:54:22 PM »
I have no idea what the background story is for this document.

Actually, Mr Smith, what you have no idea of is how to explain away what's on this document---------------the pitiful best you've been able to come up with is 'Oh gee, they musta got both the dates wrong, but hey no biggie, muh NY Times'  :D

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #314 on: February 10, 2022, 08:54:22 PM »


Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #315 on: February 10, 2022, 08:55:47 PM »
As mentioned by Martin...

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.

Worth noting is that on the copy Howlett's signature releasing the rods is missing.

Someone took the time to fake the date/time/signature of Day but forgot about Howlett.

Everything in read, probably done in one sitting by Day, from the original is perfectly copied along with Howlett's first signature.

 Thumb1:


Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #316 on: February 10, 2022, 08:57:38 PM »
Day noted: white enamel (4 pcs)

When picked up:

Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

Thumb1:

And HOW exactly did those curtain rods end up being 'marked' with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6?



Pure shenanigans!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #316 on: February 10, 2022, 08:57:38 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #317 on: February 10, 2022, 09:46:20 PM »
LOL.  So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle.  And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]".  Better known as framing him!  But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald.  Actions completely at odd with one another.  And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion?  HA HA HA.  Keep them coming.  You are twisting like a pretzel.  The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others.  And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.

So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle.

Given the reputation of the DPD in those days? Absolutely. If Fritz can put a pre-written "confession" before Buell Frazier and demand that he signs it, you're not dealing with a normal police department.

And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]". Better known as framing him!

Once again you have it backwards. "Framing him" implies that Oswald was an innocent man, who was being set up, but he doesn't have to be to get a case wrapped around him after the fact. There have been cases where there was a lack of evidence against a guilty suspect, so that evidence was simply created. In this case, I have serious doubts about the fact that Oswald is supposed to have killed Kennedy (and possibly Tippit) but there is no doubt in my mind that it is simply impossible that he was just an innocent bystander. What I am also sure about is that Hoover declared him the sole gunman within 48 hours after the crime and he simply could not afford to be wrong.

But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald.

What are you babbling about? Where does it say that Day assisted in anything other than checking some curtain rods for Oswald's prints at the request of a Secret Service Agent. You seem to foolishly believe somehow that all the players in this massive case had instant 100% knowledge of everything that was going on, when in reality they had no idea about who was doing what and what for.

Actions completely at odd with one another.  And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion?

Those actions are only completely at odd with one another, because you have a problem understanding even basic stuff. The DPD was pulled off the case when the FBI took over. I seriously doubt there was any significant and detailed information being exchanged between the FBI, the Secret Service and the DPD. For crying out loud, this whole palmprint mess began with Day not sharing information/evidence with the FBI (if he did indeed lift the print of the rifle on 11/22/63, as he later claimed).

The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others.

Who are those "others"? Was the owner himself called to testify? He wanted to, but they never called him. And what about Mitchell Westra, who told the HSCA that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC,  (HSCA interview 2/20/78) and William Sharp, who confirmed what Westra testified to (HSCA interview 2/21/78)?

And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.

When you get vague, which happens a lot, it normally is because you have nothing of substance to offer. What "multiple documents" are there that link to Oswald? There are the photocopies of the order form, the envelope and the money order, which an FBI expert says had Oswald's handwriting on it, but during the mock trail he confirmed that photocopies could be easily manipulated. So, what else is there? The mere fact that you haven't already mentioned them is all the confirmation I need to know that you are blowing smoke.

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5291
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #318 on: February 10, 2022, 11:05:31 PM »
Actually, Mr Smith, what you have no idea of is how to explain away what's on this document---------------the pitiful best you've been able to come up with is 'Oh gee, they musta got both the dates wrong, but hey no biggie, muh NY Times'  :D

Try to focus.  Ready?  What do you expect to happen by posting this document over and over and over again on this forum?  If you really believe it is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination, why not contact the NY Times or someone like that and provide them with the document?  Why not even try to contact Ruth Paine to see if she has any recollection?   If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #319 on: February 10, 2022, 11:43:01 PM »
Try to focus.  Ready?  What do you expect to happen by posting this document over and over and over again on this forum?  If you really believe it is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination, why not contact the NY Times or someone like that and provide them with the document?  Why not even try to contact Ruth Paine to see if she has any recollection?   If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.

~Grin~

Poor Mr Smith's complete inability to come up with a convincing explanation for this document is once again noted



 Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #319 on: February 10, 2022, 11:43:01 PM »