Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Anderson]

I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and  he used it.

Really?

Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.

It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....

OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.

I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.

There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.

All the evidence was contained within the archives of this Forum before they were recently lost. Shame you didn't bother to read through it all. I'm only insignificant to you because you'll never believe Oswald murdered two people.

[Joe Elliott]

That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.

I am not being highly speculative.

The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.

1.   He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.

2.   He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.

3.   Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.

The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.



Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.

Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.



The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.

Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.

Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.

Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.


The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.


The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.

The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.

[Martin Weidmann]

I am not being highly speculative.

The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.

1.   He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.

2.   He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.

3.   Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.

The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.

Occam's Razor is about reasoning with as little as possible assumptions. This does not apply here. You can not conclude from a voluntary visit and two witnesses seeing Oswald carrying a paper bag that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle and brought it to the TSBD.

Instead, what you are saying is circular logic...based on the assumption that there was indeed a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and that it was the MC rifle later found at the TSBD. 

I am not being highly speculative.

You may have been so involved in this case for so long that you truly do realize that you are, but this doesn't alter the fact that you are being exactly that.

Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.

That's a hyperbole

Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.

I have not told you what my beliefs are, so you don't know what (if any) my assumptions are and how reasonable or unreasonable they are.

The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.

Who said that?

Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.

Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.

Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.

And maybe you are just hand waving

The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.

Nobody said that Frazier's and Randle's testimony "proved" that... The rest is more hand waving

The mere fact that a bag is large enough to possibly hold a rifle does not automatically mean that it did hold a rifle.

The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.

I think you simply have convinced yourself that you are not being speculative. Instead of following "simple logical reasoning" why don't you try to look at the available evidence objectively and base your conclusion on that rather than concentrating on a possible non-related bag that was potentially big enough to possibly conceal a rifle?

The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Already answered.

The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.

The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the evidence does not show anything of the kind, but for argument's sake, why don't you produce that evidence so we can discuss it?

So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false.

There you go again basing a assumptive conclusion on another assumption.

[Richard Smith]

If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle?  Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?

Silly conspirators.

That's a great question.  CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities.  One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.  It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length.  We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.  It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found.  If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier.  In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag.  This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods.  Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle.  This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable. 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a great question.  CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities.  One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.  It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened.  Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length.  We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.  It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found.  If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier.  In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag.  This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods.  Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle.  This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.

One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.

Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?

Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.

So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.


This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain

This is all so simple and obvious to any person without a functioning brain.

There, I fixed it for you, Richard     

[Richard Smith]

One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.

Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?

Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.

So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.  If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations.  It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain.  But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers.  Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.  CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying.  There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.

[Martin Weidmann]

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.  If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations.  It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain.  But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers.  Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.  CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying.  There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.

Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.

Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.

Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....

But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?

[Walt Cakebread]

Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt:  "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth?  Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?").  So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.

Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.

Also this may highlight an important distinction.  I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag.  He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was.  He was wrong but not lying.

Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....

But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?

I've been studying the paper bag aspect ( as it first emerged)  pretty thoroughly  recently.....

I am now of the opinion that It was Buell Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle who first mentioned "curtain rods"

Linnie Mae saw the police cars gathered around the Paine residence and by her own statement she said that she had been following evens on the TV and radio, when she heard that the suspect's name was Lee Harvey Oswald ... That's when she went the half block to the Paine residence and reported to Detective Adamcik that she had sen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack like the sacks that are used for curtain rods.....