Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

Marina was an admitted liar. Her testimony to the Commission cannot be trusted.
Her visa was up at the end of January '64. She was under "protective custody" with the threat of deportation until the day she testified.

A Statement to the Assassination Records Review Board
from Marina Oswald Porter, September 17, 1996
=====================================================

"This case has never been OPENED. The twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission do not support its conclusions. My final conclusion
is that the man--Lee--was not on the sixth floor. We're not even sure about the rifle. According to the local police chief, we never could
put the rifle and the person (Oswald) together. Lee was charged with the crime. They showed him a picture, said this is a rifle, this is
you; he denied it. But they never showed him the weapon for identification. I'm the one who was supposed to identify the rifle,
and I did, believing in the authorities' good intentions . But I was the worst of all. I knew nothing of weapons or guns; I knew nothing."

https://jfk.boards.net/post/7364

Again, can you tell us what Marina lied about rather than making a conclusory statement that she is a liar?  If she is a liar in your opinion in an effort to implicate Oswald, then surely you must have specific examples.  Right?  Bizarrely you have posted a statement in which Marina appears to express skepticism of Oswald's guilt.  Something that you would likely agree with.  Is she lying in that context?  Wasn't she still subject to pressure to implicate Oswald?  Can you understand how that actually conflicts with your baseless suggestion that she was lying to implicate him in the crime?  Whew.  You need to get your story straight. It's like a pretzel. Even self-contradictory.

[Michael Capasse]

Again, can you tell us what Marina lied about rather than making a conclusory statement that she is a liar?  If she is a liar in your opinion in an effort to implicate Oswald, then surely you must have specific examples.  Right?  Bizarrely you have posted a statement in which Marina appears to express skepticism of Oswald's guilt.  Something that you would likely agree with.  Is she lying in that context?  Wasn't she still subject to pressure to implicate Oswald?  Can you understand how that actually conflicts with your baseless suggestion that she was lying to implicate him in the crime?  Whew.  You need to get your story straight. It's like a pretzel. Even self-contradictory.

You only have to listen to her years later
"I'm the one who was supposed to identify the rifle, and I did, believing in the authorities' good intentions . But I was the worst of all. I knew nothing of weapons or guns; I knew nothing."

Evidence against Oswald is broken and inconsistent.

[John Mytton]

CE399? - Do you actually think Walker confused any reference of source that was given by Blakeley as HIS bullet?
Do you actually think the picture in the 70's would have such a low resolution that he would confuse the shape or color/tone that he saw?
I don't, that's lame

Read the second paragraph s-l-o-w-l-y, Walker says that his bullet was "completely mutilated" and resembled a "hunk of lead" which funnily enough perfectly describes CE 573, then Walker goes on to say that the bullet he remembers bared "no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape of form" and now think hard, what famous bullet in this case resembles an unfired bullet??







JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Read the second paragraph s-l-o-w-l-y, Walker says that his bullet was "completely mutilated" and resembled a "hunk of lead" which funnily enough perfectly describes CE 573, then Walker goes on to say that the bullet he remembers bared "no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape of form" and now think hard, what famous bullet in this case resembles an unfired bullet??
JohnM

Lame.
He would know well enough Blakeley was talking about HIS bullet by any reference that was given

[Tom Sorensen]

So many words but again no responses.  Again, can you tells us what Marina lied about?  And it's not a logical inference that someone who buys a rifle will use it to shoot?   HA HA HA HA.  Can you tell us what someone would do with a rifle?  It appears to have a singular purpose, but do you think Oswald intended to so something other than fire it like using it as a hockey stick to gain entry into the NHL?  It's embarrassing to see the lengths that you will go to avoid admitting the obvious.

So many words but again no responses.

I kept it to a minimum so even you should be able to follow along; what responses are you missing?

Again, can you tells us what Marina lied about?

Unknown to me, but I doubt that Norman would come forward with that claim without something to back it up. Are you losing confidence in the WC?

And it's not a logical inference that someone who buys a rifle will use it to shoot?   

It would require someone to be in possession of matching ammo.

HA HA HA HA. 

Is that some kind of argument?

Can you tell us what someone would do with a rifle?

Um, not without asking. WTF are you rambling about?

It appears to have a singular purpose,

Appears. Who cares what it appears to you?

but do you think Oswald intended to so something other than fire it like using it as a hockey stick to gain entry into the NHL?

I already answered that question, which is further supported by the fact that he didn't buy ammo, although Klein's had a package deal including a clip and ammo.

It's embarrassing to see the lengths that you will go to avoid admitting the obvious.

Tsk-tsk, all your wild speculation has been taken care of.

[John Mytton]

Lame.
He would know well enough Blakeley(sic) was talking about HIS bullet by any reference that was given

OK, let's assume that Blakey was talking about the Walker bullet and they showed the already well established CE 573, and Walker remembered another bullet, what would Walker complain about and how would he structure his letter to get his point across??

1) CE 573 is already mutilated so why would an angry Walker complain about that? Wouldn't he elaborate and say, my bullet was more/less mutilated?
2) If Walker remembered a steel FMJ, why wasn't this mentioned, because that is the biggest differentiator and would surely get attention.
3) Why even mention an "unfired bullet", how does that help Walker's argument?

Therefore my original analysis is the only logical explanation, Blakey showed CE 399 and narcissistic Walker thought it was his bullet.



JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

OK, let's assume that Blakey was talking about the Walker bullet and they showed the already well established CE 573, and Walker remembered another bullet, what would Walker complain about and how would he structure his letter to get his point across??

1) CE 573 is already mutilated so why would an angry Walker complain about that? Wouldn't he elaborate and say, my bullet was more/less mutilated?
2) If Walker remembered a steel FMJ, why wasn't this mentioned, because that is the biggest differentiator and would surely get attention.
3) Why even mention an "unfired bullet", how does that help Walker's argument?

Therefore my original analysis is the only logical explanation, Blakey showed CE 399 and narcissistic Walker thought it was his bullet.
JohnM

While watching, why does Walker care about any other bullet but his own?
I know, I would make sure they were talking about MY bullet or not.

[John Mytton]

While watching, why does Walker care about any other bullet but his own?
I know, I would make sure they were talking about MY bullet or not.

Just answer 1 question, why would Walker compare his mutilated bullet to an "unfired bullet"?

JohnM