Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Jerry Organ]

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.

 

Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do. Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
     however improbable, must be the truth."
          – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.

[Martin Weidmann]

Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do. Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
     however improbable, must be the truth."
          – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.

Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do.

Another classic LN misrepresentation. I made no such claim and actually said;

"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."

But I have learned by now that I can't hold it against them. Misrepresenation is part of who they are. It's probably due to some sort of collective reading comprehension disorder.

Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.

And there is the also classic strawman, being knocked down as soon as it it raised. None of it has anything to do with me. I can only laugh about the constant whining and the pitiful attacks by LNs on my person as some sort of substitute for presenting a halfway decent argument.

  "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
     however improbable, must be the truth."
          – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.

Perhaps you shouldn't quote Conan Doyle, when you are struggling as much as you are to put it in practice.

[Richard Smith]

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!

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.  It is just unsolvable.  And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right.   Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer.  Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity.  You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard.  No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.  As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.  It is just unsolvable.  And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right.   Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer.  Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity.  You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard.  No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.  As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.

Something you don't understand?

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that Oswald was a lone gunman and not being able to provide even the beginning of some evidence to prove it.

And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right. 

When exactly did I ever claim that I was right, Mr. Strawman?

Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer.  Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity.  You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.

Nurse, Richard is whining again....

Btw, the implication of the official narrative being a fraud and the evidence not "having any validity" is simple; it's a conspiracy of some kind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if it was a conspiracy or not. You and your ilk are the ones who are desperately fighting, for some unexplained reason, against the possibility of a conspiracy. I'll be more than happy to accept that Oswald was the lone nut gunman if you provide the proof. And that's where the whole thing goes wrong. You know that you can not provide the conclusive evidence so, instead, you whine like a cry baby about people not being persuaded by the crap you come up with. It's pathetic.

As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd. 

More absurd as what? The offical narrative? There can never be anything more absurd as the offical narrative!   

Btw, I'm sorry but I have lost count. Just how many posts have you written that actually have nothing to do with the case and the evidence? I lost count at 2340... Did I miss something?

[Bill Chapman]

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.

Something you don't understand?

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that Oswald was a lone gunman and not being able to provide even the beginning of some evidence to prove it.

And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right. 

When exactly did I ever claim that I was right, Mr. Strawman?

Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer.  Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity.  You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.

Nurse, Richard is whining again....

Btw, the implication of the official narrative being a fraud and the "evidence having any validity" is simple; it's a conspiracy of some kind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if it was a conspiracy or not. You and your ilk are the ones who are desperately fighting, for some unexplained reason, against the possibility of a conspiracy. I'll be more than happy to accept that Oswald was the lone nut gunman if you provide the proof. And that's where the whole thing goes wrong. You know that you can not provide the conclusive evidence so, instead, you whine like cry baby about people not being persuaded by the crap you come up with. It's pathetic.

As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd. 

More absurd as what? The offical narrative? There can never be anything more absurd as the offical narrative!   

Btw, I'm sorry but I have lost count. Just how many posts have you written that actually have nothing to do with the case and the evidence? I lost count at 2340... Did I miss something?

'Nurse, Richard is whining again....'
_I see you finally got yourself a nurse
  Too late though

[Bill Chapman]

Says the fool who claims that he "knows" things, as if he was there at the time when it happened, but can not answer a simple question. In reality he should say he simply believes the crap called "the official narrative" without questioning any of it.

In any case, he fits the profile I described above to a tee.

Usually the profiles you ascribe to LNers in general usually fit yourself as well

[Rick Plant]

     Q: Tell me, how was Lee Harvey Oswald carrying this package you described
          as he was walking in front of you?

     A: Parallel to his side, up and down. Like you stick it up under your armpit and
          the other part cupped in his hand.

     Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough to
          see that?

     A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
          but as he was walking along in front of me naturallyI looked in his direction
          and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.

"What it appeared to be" said Frazier. So, he isn't 100% certain it was. Then people try to call him a liar when he isn't certain.   

"I didn't pay attention to it particularly" said Frazier. And why would he? It was a normal day for Frazier and he suspected nothing was amiss. But then people try to falsely claim he was "covering up for Oswald".       

"I was not close enough to see" said Frazier. Which only makes what he did see an assumption and not a clear eyewitness testimony.   

[Jack Nessan]

Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.  It is just unsolvable.  And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right.   Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer.  Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity.  You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard.  No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.  As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.

It is unbelievable he would post such a thing. When Martin is not here at the forum, he is probably at some sporting event with a painted face screaming at the refs and players. Telling the players they don't know how to play the game while accusing the refs of cheating.

In light of his post, it is best just to ignore him. He needs to take a stand, man up, and grow a pair or go home. Everyone else does. I noticed when he is getting one of his ridiculous thoughts dissected he is not nearly so aggressive. It is actually kind of amusing to watch, he usually manages to contradict himself about every fourth post then runs for cover and starts making accusations.