Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Jerry Organ]

Somehow you fail to consider the possibility that those who disagree with you get their information from the actual evidence itself, rather than your own favorite biased propaganda sources listed in an earlier post.

I must have missed your posts where you utilized the evidence to present a viable non-LN JFK Assassination Theory.

[Alan Ford]

This gets to the CTs' expectation of absolute proof. As if a new eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness said the paper bag package could have contained a rifle. Some won't accept anything LN unless it was captured on Hollywood movie film; that's why a good many of them believe their CT claims and "corrupt" officials because Oliver Stone made them appear "real" in his "JFK" reenactments.

This gets to the LNs' resistance to evidence and logic. As if a third eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness confirmed the paper bag package could not have contained a rifle. They won't accept anything unless it poses no threat to the official story; that's why a good many of them believe their LN claims because Dan Rather made them appear "real" in his "reenactments".

[Martin Weidmann]

I must have missed your posts where you utilized the evidence to present a viable non-LN JFK Assassination Theory.

Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all.

To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!

[Bill Chapman]

CT (shallow) claim: 'That's why a good many of them believe their LN claims because Dan Rather made them appear "real" in his "reenactments"
_The Rather demo inspired me to test for myself
  Conclusion: Feasibility confirmed

[Jerry Freeman]

Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS [Dallas policeman] - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there?
Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN - Then did you say around the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes; I stayed at the back until the squad got there.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/harkness.htm
Commission staff--- 'Let's not inquire about these agents any further. Oswald did it is our only client'

[Jerry Organ]

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/harkness.htm
Commission staff--- 'Let's not inquire about these agents any further. Oswald did it is our only client'

"Significantly, most of the witnesses who made identifications of Secret Service personnel stated that they had surmised that any plainclothed individual in the company of uniformed police officers must have been a Secret Service agent. Because the Dallas Police Department had numerous plainclothes detectives on duty in the Dealey Plaza area, the committee considered it possible they were mistaken for Secret Service agents."

     -- HSCA Report, USGPO, p. 184

[Martin Weidmann]

"Significantly, most of the witnesses who made identifications of Secret Service personnel stated that they had surmised that any plainclothed individual in the company of uniformed police officers must have been a Secret Service agent. Because the Dallas Police Department had numerous plainclothes detectives on duty in the Dealey Plaza area, the committee considered it possible they were mistaken for Secret Service agents."

     -- HSCA Report, USGPO, p. 184

 

A good example of dealing with the evidence by not dealing with the evidence!

Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.

[Jack Nessan]

Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all.

To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!

Martin Weidmann: 

"Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all."

"To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!"

WOW, Hard to believe Jerry, what self-disillusionment. Can't believe this is in print. This is what happens to a person when all of their ridiculous little pet theories get debunked. They have nothing to add to the conversation, so this is what they evolve into.