Buell Wesley Frazier

[John Mytton]

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.

Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!

I'm not here to convince you of anything.

Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.

Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.

Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.

• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.

Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.

You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.

Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.

Right hand:

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? 

Mrs. RANDLE. That is right. 

Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Left Hand:

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.


Both Hands:

I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.

All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.

The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

[Jack Nessan]

All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.

The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

All garbage.

You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.

But don't be so hard on yourself.  It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.


She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand

No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.


The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.

[Michael Capasse]

All garbage.

You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.

But don't be so hard on yourself.  It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.


She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand

No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.


The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.

I don't debate cartoon theories.
Later, dude.

[Jack Nessan]

I don't debate cartoon theories.
Later, dude.

You don’t debate? That is interesting.  A better way to describe it is “when the going gets tough the tough get going”.

Anyway, your posts put the BWF and bag issue to bed.

[Michael Capasse]

No evidence of the rifle in the Paine garage on 11/21
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Although Frazier did not pay attention to the bag, he was sure it was carried from the palm to the armpit. (too small for the rifle)
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.



 There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever put in that bag and carried in that morning by Lee Oswald.

[Jack Nessan]

No evidence of the rifle in the Paine garage on 11/21
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Although Frazier did not pay attention to the bag, he was sure it was carried from the palm to the armpit. (too small for the rifle)
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.



 There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever put in that bag and carried in that morning by Lee Oswald.

Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.

Linnie Mae did not lie about what she saw. BWF had a very good reason to lie.

Linnie Mae and BWF gave radically different accounts of how the bag was carried. Linnie Mae’s account of how the bag was carried does not work with BWF’s estimate of length. Linnie Mae’s account works with what was discovered in the SN. BWF’s does not. The bag discovered in the SN has LHO’s prints on it matching Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package. You know this.
 

 
 

[Tom Sorensen]

And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.

And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.

What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!

Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.

What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!

Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.



BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.

Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.

JohnM

Right, Oswald didn't really care about his Carcano and toddlers kicking it around the garage floor was no big deal, so what exactly did you mean by "safely stored"?

Oh, about the scope, if it wasn't permanently attached, when did it become attached?