Buell Wesley Frazier

[Jack Nessan]

Who knows, given the fact that John N. Newman (author of the 1995/2008 book, "Oswald and the CIA") is probably right when he says in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," that a KGB mole by the name of Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA?

Why Oswald instead of anyone else. I am a long way from well-read on Oswald but what I have garnered, is he was really an anti-social individual. How would someone like him possibly get information from any high-ranking person? It is hard to imagine someone with his nature being good at securing information. You have read a great deal more on this Russian subject than anyone I know. Does he really seem like a person who would be good at it? Granted this whole Russian defection seems strange but everything about him is strange.  but that does not make him a spy, just odd.

[Tom Graves]

Why Oswald instead of anyone else. I am a long way from well-read on Oswald but what I have garnered, is he was really an anti-social individual. How would someone like him possibly get information from any high-ranking person? It is hard to imagine someone with his nature being good at securing information. You have read a great deal more on this Russian subject than anyone I know. Does he really seem like a person who would be good at it? Granted this whole Russian defection seems strange but everything about him is strange.  but that does not make him a spy, just odd.

Perhaps you should read Newman's 2008 version of Oswald and the CIA (in which he accuses Angleton of being the mastermind), and his 2022 book, Uncovering Popov's Mole -- which he dedicates to my hero, Tennent H. Bagley (look him up) -- in which he says he was wrong to accuse Angleton of being the mastermind. But do by all means disregard the parts where he says Sergei Papushin was a true defector, that Oswald was a Ukrainian (sic) KGB agent in Minsk, and that some evil, evil high-level American military officers killed JFK because he refused to nuke Moscow and Peking in 1963, won't you?

(Once a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, always a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, I guess . . .)

[Tom Sorensen]

Fond indeed, and it was Richard who came up with the "scope nonsense."

OK, it holds no interest. People should forget it was even on the rifle.

But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.

Her contradictory statements are documented; it's a matter of fact. Facts don't care whether you like them or not.

If you throw a rock, you will hit a witness who made a contradictory statement in the JFK assassination. Does that mean no one has any credibility?

It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."

You forgot the quote.

There's no supporting evidence for Oswald dry firing a Carcano, only Marina's claim that he did. Why do you hope to win this argument?

Not true, CE 543 shell was dryfired in LHO's carcano.

By whom?

[Michael Capasse]

Not true, CE 543 shell was dryfired in LHO's carcano.

CE-543 was a dented shell found in the SN.
Did he dry-fire at the president?

https://jfk.boards.net/post/2754/thread

[Jack Nessan]

Perhaps you should read Newman's 2008 version of Oswald and the CIA (in which he accuses Angleton of being the mastermind), and his 2022 book, Uncovering Popov's Mole -- which he dedicates to my hero, Tennent H. Bagley (look him up) -- in which he says he was wrong to accuse Angleton of being the mastermind. But do by all means disregard the parts where he says Sergei Papushin was a true defector, that Oswald was a Ukrainian (sic) KGB agent in Minsk, and that some evil, evil high-level American military officers killed JFK because he refused to nuke Moscow and Peking in 1963, won't you?

(Once a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, always a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, I guess . . .)

I will check out the book. 911 and the back story to that has always been interesting.

The biggest question I have is always, what do these people hope to gain by weaving these tales? It seems accusing these people of wrong doing in a book would be a good way to leave this world suddenly if there was any reality to it.

Some of this sounds like the docuseries the Octopus Murders. In the end no one knows if it was real or not, but the journalist is still dead.

 

[Jack Nessan]

But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.

It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."

You forgot the quote.

By whom?

But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.

People are fascinated by the scope. I am just not one of them.

So were the iron sights there but no one is concerned about them. Without shooting the rifle he easily could have checked to see how far off the scope was. It truly is a poor quality scope. Sighting scopes in is a process they are not automatically accurate when installed. The scope mount used can be easily bent. Coming installed from the factory means nothing. 
 

It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."

Her expertise in rifles consists of what? The same result would have been achieved asking her about the medical information. Marina has no experience with it either to draw on.


You forgot the quote.

Typo
 

By whom?

If not Oswald, who is doing the shooting. It doesn’t change the fact that CE 543 was dryfired and matched to the rifle.

[Tom Sorensen]

But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.

People are fascinated by the scope. I am just not one of them.

The facts still don't care about your opinion.

So were the iron sights there but no one is concerned about them.

Certainly not the WC, for obvious reasons.

Without shooting the rifle he easily could have checked to see how far off the scope was.

That would certainly depend on the condition of the scope; what scenario are you assuming since your sudden interest in the scope?

It truly is a poor quality scope. Sighting scopes in is a process they are not automatically accurate when installed. The scope mount used can be easily bent. Coming installed from the factory means nothing. 

So why bring it to the sixth floor when it wasn't to be trusted?

It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."

Her expertise in rifles consists of what? The same result would have been achieved asking her about the medical information. Marina has no experience with it either to draw on.

So not creditable across the board.

You forgot the quote.

Typo

Good.

By whom?

If not Oswald, who is doing the shooting. It doesn’t change the fact that CE 543 was dryfired and matched to the rifle.

If not Oswald, why bring up CE 543? You make no sense.