Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. 

It's hopeless.  The endless contrarian game.  A long bag was found in the building.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag.  Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack.  Martin doesn't understand why this is critical.  If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him.  For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it.  If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag.  What did Oswald do?  He denied carrying a long bag.  Case closed.

[Martin Weidmann]

The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. 

BS. Of course it's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". What there is evidence of is Frazier saying that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, yet, you pathetically ignore that completely. 

[Martin Weidmann]

It's hopeless.  The endless contrarian game.  A long bag was found in the building.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag.  Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack.  Martin doesn't understand why this is critical.  If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him.  For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it.  If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag.  What did Oswald do?  He denied carrying a long bag.  Case closed.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you write one master post that includes all your whining and complaining and refer to that every time you feel the need to post the same old crap again. It saves you time, because you don't have to type the same tripe over and over again and it saves us from being bored by the same old BS over and over again.

If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier,

The problem is that Martin isn't desperate about that at all. There is no need for it. If Martin is desperate for something it is probably that you, if only for once, actually present some evidence to support your opinions....

[Charles Collins]

BS. Of course it's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". What there is evidence of is Frazier saying that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, yet, you pathetically ignore that completely. 

There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body".


The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.

What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated. You completely ignore this fact.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body".

The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.

What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated. You completely ignore this fact.

The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking. The bag found at the TSBD had multiple prints on it which could not be identified (go figure) and that bag never fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit. To argue that the length of the bag would require it to be carried differently as the witness said is simply trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.

It may be normal for you to make assumptions so that you can "prove" something which you would not be able to prove without those assumptions, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. There you need to prove that the bag (which was too large) was indeed protruding out before you can credibly claim that it was the bag Oswald carried.

The mere fact that Oswald print was on a bag that was found inside the TSBD and was made from materials common to the TSBD means very little. It's evidentiary value is even further reduced by the fact that the only two witnesses who saw the bag Oswald carried said that this wasn't that bag.

What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated.

Actually, the evidence that a bag that Frazier described did exist is the corroboration by Randle.

[Patrick Jackson]

I had no opportunity to read the whole book but reading the introduction makes me feel Buell wants to say something between the lines. Why was he afraid for himself and his family? Years of what emotional pain? Why he doubted whether he would be ever to hold his head up in public and see people who believed his story?

My impression is that he always wanted to tell the truth but was afraid and the truth is: Lee was standing on those steps next to him while the limo was passing by.

[Richard Smith]

The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking. The bag found at the TSBD had multiple prints on it which could not be identified (go figure) and that bag never fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit. To argue that the length of the bag would require it to be carried differently as the witness said is simply trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.

It may be normal for you to makes assumptions so that you can "prove" something which you would not be able to prove without those assumptions, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. There you need to prove that the bag (which was too large) was indeed protruding out before you can credibly claim that it was the bag Oswald carried.

The mere fact that Oswald print was on a bag that was found inside the TSBD and was made from materials common to the TSBD means very little. It's evidentiary value is even further reduced by the fact that the only two witnesses who saw the bag Oswald carried said that this wasn't that bag.

What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated.

Actually, the evidence that a bag that Frazier described did exist is the corroboration by Randle.

Down the rabbit hole we go again! Here we learn that the fact that a long, brown bag was found inside the building in which Oswald carried a long, brown bag is not relevant.  EVEN when it has Oswald's prints on it!  EVEN when it's found next to the SN with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle nearby.  EVEN when there is no other explanation for that bag's presence in the building.  EVEN When no one else who worked there ever claims it or explains its presence on the 6th floor.  And where is Martin's shorter bag?  Let me guess.  He doesn't care.  It's of no apparent relevance to him that no bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier was ever found or accounted for in any way in the building into which it was carried.  It just magically vanishes at that point.  He is also not deterred by the denial of Oswald himself that he carried any bag other than his lunch.  HA HA HA.  The bag found on the 6th floor is not an "assumption" or anyone's "opinion."  That bag, unlike Frazier's shorter bag, actually exists here on planet Earth.  It is linked directly to Oswald by his prints and its location near the SN.   It can be measured to avoid relying on estimates of its size by a witness who had no real cause to note it or estimate its length at the time he glimpsed it.  That is what we call "evidence." 

[Martin Weidmann]

Down the rabbit hole we go again! Here we learn that the fact that a long, brown bag was found inside the building in which Oswald carried a long, brown bag is not relevant.  EVEN when it has Oswald's prints on it!  EVEN when it's found next to the SN with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle nearby.  EVEN when there is no other explanation for that bag's presence in the building.  EVEN When no one else who worked there ever claims it or explains its presence on the 6th floor.  And where is Martin's shorter bag?  Let me guess.  He doesn't care.  It's of no apparent relevance to him that no bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier was ever found or accounted for in any way in the building into which it was carried.  It just magically vanishes at that point.  He is also not deterred by the denial of Oswald himself that he carried any bag other than his lunch.  HA HA HA.  The bag found on the 6th floor is not an "assumption" or anyone's "opinion."  That bag, unlike Frazier's shorter bag, actually exists here on planet Earth.  It is linked directly to Oswald by his prints and its location near the SN.   It can be measured to avoid relying on estimates of its size by a witness who had no real cause to note it or estimate its length at the time he glimpsed it.  That is what we call "evidence."

That is what we call "evidence."

Yes I know, that's what is so sad about it. It shows us all that you confuse opinions, assumptions and speculation with actual evidence.