Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Buell Wesley Frazier  (Read 159475 times)

Offline Robert Doane

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #328 on: September 28, 2019, 06:55:49 PM »
Advertisement
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?....  What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?

There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government.   The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan.  The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians.  They even sent Lee to  foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.


Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.

Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.

The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.


Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #328 on: September 28, 2019, 06:55:49 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #329 on: September 28, 2019, 08:42:45 PM »

Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.

Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.

The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.


Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.

Lee was a junior grade agent....His mission to Russia was to give him in the field training. ( experience)  He surprised his handlers at his resourcefulness.    When his mother went to Washington ( immediately after JFK's inauguration) she got the new President's attention.   In his checking on momma Oswald's son he learned that the kid was a US agent.   He was astonished to learn that someone so young was a spy and had successfully penetrated the Iron Curtain.    He ordered the State Department to go to work and bring the young spy in from the cold. (Figuratively and actually....Brrrrr...Those Russian winters.) 

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #330 on: May 30, 2020, 06:53:49 AM »
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.

Who's lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.

Colin,

Why would Russophile Ruthie lie?

I mean I mean I mean If she was a liar, why would probable long-term KGB illegal George DeMohrenschildt (according to CI/SIG analyst Clare Edward Petty in TMWKTM) hand off Oswald and his probable (according to KGB true-defector Pyotr Deriabin) KGB-agent wife over to a person like that?

It makes no sense.

(LOL)

--  MWT  ;)

PS  I think Ruthie's story about how she found, and hid, and oh yeah copied (while Oswald was taking what must have been AT LEAST A FORTY-FIVE MINUTE SHOWER) the "Comrade Kostin" draft is totally believable, don't you?

/s
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 06:24:03 PM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #330 on: May 30, 2020, 06:53:49 AM »


Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #331 on: January 12, 2024, 01:30:53 AM »
Addendum:

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.

Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).

Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.

9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.

And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.

1.   The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.

2.   The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
I know that Shermer is an idiot (from my reading over the years).
I dont know who came up with that stuff re the concentration of cyanide needed to kill insects versus to kill humans --- chemists tell us that insects need much less than humans (from my reading over the years).

Online Tom Mahon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #332 on: February 21, 2025, 04:24:27 AM »
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.

IMHO, Frazier realized how long the bag was and intuited that it contained a broken-down rifle, but lied about it later because he was afraid he might incriminate himself as an accessory to the murder of the President of the United States if he told the truth.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2025, 05:07:47 AM by Tom Mahon »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #332 on: February 21, 2025, 04:24:27 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #333 on: February 21, 2025, 06:10:41 AM »
IMHO, Frazier realized how long the bag was and intuited that it contained a broken-down rifle, but lied about it later because he was afraid he might incriminate himself as an accessory to the murder of the President of the United States if he told the truth.

I think you're probably right, a package that was about "2 feet long, give and take a few inches" could easily be kept comfortably with you in the front seat and especially if it was Oswald's lunch like he says, but regardless, Oswald first goes beyond where he later waited and went straight to Frazier's car, opens the back door up and immediately hides the package in the car on the back seat. If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out? instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
Also what's pretty funny is that in the first photo below it's claimed by some extreme Ct's that Linnie Mae couldn't see through the open slats to see Oswald, Hilarious!





Linnie Mae Randall told the FBI on the day after that the package was approximately three feet long.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

Frazier says the package was around "two feet, give and take a few inches."

Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--


And Linnie in her testimony folds a sample bag and the length was 28 and a half inches then she quickly corrects this guess by saying another sample bag was 27 when it was measured once before, she was trying her best to shrink the bag. Which was most likely after she colluded with her brother to keep Oswald's rifle sack as small as reasonably possible.

Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.


Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Also worth noting is Frazier's constant assertion that he never payed much attention to the bag, which could mean that he really didn't give a stuff about Oswald's sack which means any size guess is worthless, or he perfectly knew in hindsight that Oswald had a rifle so Frazier tried his utmost to paint himself as innocent?

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #334 on: February 21, 2025, 07:47:20 AM »
I think you're probably right, a package that was about "2 feet long, give and take a few inches" could easily be kept comfortably with you in the front seat and especially if it was Oswald's lunch like he says, but regardless, Oswald first goes beyond where he later waited and went straight to Frazier's car, opens the back door up and immediately hides the package in the car on the back seat. If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out? instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
Also what's pretty funny is that in the first photo below it's claimed by some extreme Ct's that Linnie Mae couldn't see through the open slats to see Oswald, Hilarious!





Linnie Mae Randall told the FBI on the day after that the package was approximately three feet long.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

Frazier says the package was around "two feet, give and take a few inches."

Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--


And Linnie in her testimony folds a sample bag and the length was 28 and a half inches then she quickly corrects this guess by saying another sample bag was 27 when it was measured once before, she was trying her best to shrink the bag. Which was most likely after she colluded with her brother to keep Oswald's rifle sack as small as reasonably possible.

Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.


Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Also worth noting is Frazier's constant assertion that he never payed much attention to the bag, which could mean that he really didn't give a stuff about Oswald's sack which means any size guess is worthless, or he perfectly knew in hindsight that Oswald had a rifle so Frazier tried his utmost to paint himself as innocent?

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--


If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out?

Another one of those crappy "Oswald didn't do what I would have done, so he must be guilty" arguments.

instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!

What makes you think Oswald did that?

Btw, isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?

Online Tom Mahon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #335 on: February 21, 2025, 08:07:31 AM »
Isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?

See my previous post.

Maybe Frazier, Lee-Enfield rifle owner that he was, intuited right away that morning that there was probably a broken-down rifle in the package.

If so, since he didn't tell any of his bosses at the TSBD about his suspicion when they arrived, he surely wouldn't want to fess up to it now.

D'oh

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Buell Wesley Frazier
« Reply #335 on: February 21, 2025, 08:07:31 AM »