Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

For somebody who said;

I guess this is Good Bye Martin.

and

Good bye again Martin.

you surely have an odd way of ignoring me.

It's not my fault, nor my problem, that all your pathetic claims have been debunked, without you even understanding that it actually happened. Your "I know Oswald killed Kennedy etc" arrogance combined with your reading comprehension disorder took care of that.

Did I strike I nerve when I destroyed your "arguments" in our last conversation, mr "I know things"? It certainly seems that way. And perhaps the best demonstration of that fact is that you have now come down to the level of Richard Smith, who hasn't been able to post a persuasive argument for a very long time and only whines about those nasty CT's he fails to convince of anything. Like you, he also confuses his opinion with actual evidence. Whining about CTs is just about the last resort for every LN who has no coherent arguments left..... Not a good place to be!

[Jerry Freeman]

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... 

And then you spend waste your time...yakity yak.
There was a cover up. That is no theory. 

[Richard Smith]

It wasn't just a footnote to the WC, that's for sure -- LOL

But why don't you simply show us Frazier's polygraph test to eliminate possible memory loss?

Thanks in advance!

Another valuable contribution.  Wow.  A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not.  At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying.  Frazier appears to believe his story.  He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was.  But that don't make it so.  It's possible to be honest but erroneous. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Another valuable contribution.  Wow.  A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not.  At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying.  Frazier appears to believe his story.  He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was.  But that don't make it so.  It's possible to be honest but erroneous.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that will ever convince you that your opinion is wrong. Got it! 

Hey, wait a minute.... that sound familiar. Now, let me think, where did I hear/read this before......

[Richard Smith]

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that will ever convince you that your opinion is wrong. Got it! 

Hey, wait a minute.... that sound familiar. Now, let me think, where did I hear/read this before......

So that's what you consider "evidence"!  At long last we have found something.  You reject documents, prints, photographs as "assumptions" but a polygraph is evidence.  But evidence of what?  The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate.  Assuming that is even what he was asked.   

[Martin Weidmann]

So that's what you consider "evidence"!  At long last we have found something.  You reject documents, prints, photographs as "assumptions" but a polygraph is evidence.  But evidence of what?  The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate.  Assuming that is even what he was asked.   

What documents, prints and photographes have I rejected as "assumptions"? Be specific....

I think you confuse the actual evidence with your far-fetched interpretations of that evidence, because the latter are indeed assumptions.

The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate.  Assuming that is even what he was asked.

So, you dismiss something that you are not even sure about actually happened? Frazier was never asked for an estimate.

Detective R.D. Lewis, who ran the polygraph, told FBI agent Vincent Drain that, while he was being polygraphed Lt. Day showed Frazier a paper bag [the one found at the TSBD] and Frazier stated that it did not resemble the bag he had seen Oswald carry. And so, the polygraph confirmed that Frazier actually believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried.

It's interesting to note that Lt Day had told Drain earlier that after the bag had been found he had locked it away and not exhibited it to anybody, which is an obviously lie as he had shown in to Frazier on Friday evening. 

[Richard Smith]

Another valuable contribution.

 
 
Wow.

So you shouldn't be surprised -- LOL

A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not.

Never said it did, FAIL #1.

At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying.

Really?
 
Frazier appears to believe his story.

"appears" -- LOL

He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was.

You have no way of knowing what he thinks, FAIL #2.

Even if you did there's no evidence his estimate was shorter (or longer) than it actually was, FAIL #3.

But that don't make it so.

Nonsense, see above.

It's possible to be honest but erroneous.

Sure, despite this you scored another hat-trick in one sitting!

BTW,

Assuming that is even what he was asked.   

Why don't you show us what he was asked instead of trying to BS your way out?

This is weird even by your standards.  You raised Frazier's polygraph presumably to bolster his belief that he carried a shorter bag than the one found and then ask me what he was asked in the polygraph.  Casting doubt on the subject that you raised.  Unreal. 

[Richard Smith]

What documents, prints and photographes have I rejected as "assumptions"? Be specific....

I think you confuse the actual evidence with your far-fetched interpretations of that evidence, because the latter are indeed assumptions.

The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate.  Assuming that is even what he was asked.

So, you dismiss something that you are not even sure about actually happened? Frazier was never asked for an estimate.

Detective R.D. Lewis, who ran the polygraph, told FBI agent Vincent Drain that, while he was being polygraphed Lt. Day showed Frazier a paper bag [the one found at the TSBD] and Frazier stated that it did not resemble the bag he had seen Oswald carry. And so, the polygraph confirmed that Frazier actually believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried.

It's interesting to note that Lt Day had told Drain earlier that after the bag had been found he had locked it away and not exhibited it to anybody, which is an obviously lie as he had shown in to Frazier on Friday evening.

Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation."  And "chain of custody" nonsense.  That's been done a million times with you.  You reject all the evidence against Oswald.  The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."  As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.  Down the rabbit hole we go. Weeeeee.