Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, Buell Frazier has a right to his opinion. Of course he does. Everyone does. But what I wonder is this: Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion? Is Buell even fully aware of all the evidence against Oswald? I wonder. And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

You don't like that? Deal with it!

Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion?

Why is that even of interest to you? Why does it bother you so much that Buell Frazier does not consider Oswald guilty?

And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

What's the weather like in fairyland?

I'm sorry, but when you have not a shred of evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage, when you have to dismiss out of hand as "mistaken" the eye-witness testimony of two persons who actually saw the bag Oswald was carrying and said it wasn't the one allegedly found at the sniper's nest, when you can not even place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63, when none of the women on the 4th floor see Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired, and when the MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald, you haven't got much of a case. In fact all you've got are assumptions.

Or am I mistaken? Did I miss something? If I wrote anything that isn't factual and correct, feel free to correct me!

[David Von Pein]

What's the weather like in fairyland?

I'm sorry, but when you have not a shred of evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage, when you have to dismiss out of hand as "mistaken" the eye-witness testimony of two persons who actually saw the bag Oswald was carrying and said it wasn't the one allegedly found at the sniper's nest, when you can not even place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63, when none of the women on the 4th floor see Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired, and when the MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald, you haven't got much of a case. In fact all you've got are assumptions.

Or am I mistaken? Did I miss something? If I wrote anything that isn't factual and correct, feel free to correct me!

You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.

And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".

When will the conspiracy fantasists stop perpetuating the "Oswald Never Ordered Or Possessed The C2766 Rifle" myth?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

More of Martin's tripe is taken care of here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

[Martin Weidmann]

You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.

And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".

When will the conspiracy fantasists stop perpetuating the "Oswald Never Ordered Or Possessed The C2766 Rifle" myth?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

More of Martin's tripe is taken care of here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.

Maybe, but I know a BS artist when I see one. When you need to start your reply with an insult, you've already lost the argument. You are not an authority on this case, no matter how much information you accumulate. You're just a parrot.

And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".

Then prove me wrong! Why don't you?

I have no intention to read the bias diatribes you post on your blog. I have asked you to prove anything I have written is wrong and it seems you can't.

Do you have any evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?

Do you have any evidence that Buell Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the bag Oswald was carrying?

Can you place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63?

Can you name any of the women on the 4th floor who saw Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired?

And can you prove conclusively that the MC rifle found at the TSBD is linked, beyond tentatively, to Oswald?

Note: I did have a look at the links you've provided and found a number of absolute misrepresentations of the evidence. When you need to misrepresent the evidence only once, you've already lost all credibility.

[Alan Ford]

At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html

With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?

I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.

I have compiled a Frazier-related question for Mr von Pein. I would like it very much if Mr von Pein could some day answer my inquiry.

Question: How do you explain what's on the document below?



 

[David Von Pein]

I would like it very much if Mr von Pein [sic] could some day answer my inquiry.

[...]

How do you explain what's on the document below?

As has happened on several documents relating to the JFK case, the "3-15-64" date is obviously an error. It should say March 23rd.....as Vincent Bugliosi discusses in the book excerpt seen below. And even Vince B. isn't immune to slipping a digit. In this book excerpt, in fact, his "March 26" should say "March 24". But, nobody's perfect. Not even the former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney....

[David Von Pein]

I did have a look at the links you've provided and found a number of absolute misrepresentations of the evidence.

Name one.

[David Von Pein]

Addendum to my post regarding Bugliosi and the Paine curtain rods....

My apologies to the late Mr. Bugliosi for saying he "slipped a digit". He didn't slip a digit at all, because I just now noticed that there are two different versions of CE1952. The one posted above by Alan Ford shows a March 24 date; whereas the CE1952 in WC Volume 23 (the one Vince obviously was referring to in his 2007 book) shows a different version, featuring a March 26th date on it (shown below). Most curious indeed.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm

[Martin Weidmann]

Name one.

The Vincent Scalice bit. The conclusions you draw from it is a complete over exaggeration.

Scalice never handled the rifle itself and was only asked to compare photographs that were claimed to have been of the trigger of the rifle in the National Archives.

Btw, that's the difference between you and me. When you ask me a question, I actually answer it.

When I ask you a question, I get a bunch of links with biased assumptions and one sided interpretations of pieces of evidence. What I don't get is a straight answer and one can only wonder why!