Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack

[Richard Smith]

So rather than addressing the points I have made in my previous posts, you just decided to ignore it all and instead completely misrepresent what I have been saying in order to (once again) concoct another strawman rant in which you repeat your own lies and misrepresentations of the evidence as if they haven't already been debunked and proven wrong. Who do you think you are fooling?

But very well, unlike you, I will address all the crap you foolishly consider to be "logic"

Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. 

Stop exposing your stupidity and stop lying. I did not cite a polygraph nor did I rely on one. I said that the record shows Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the heavy bag and there is no mention of any anomaly. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not!

He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.

More dishonesty and stupidity... First of all,  I have never denied (or confirmed for that matter) that "there is no work-related explanation for the bag" simply because I don't know if there was one or not (and neither do you) and secondly, the lack of an work-related explanation for that bag does not automatically mean that it's only purpose must have been "to carry the rifle".

He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).

More dishonesty. I don't dismiss the prints on the bag. I dismiss as speculation your claim that those prints somehow prove that the bag ever "was in Oswald's possession". Those prints could have been the result of Oswald simply picking up the bag and moving it that same morning. There is no way of knowing with any kind of certainty how those prints got on the bag, if they actually ever did!

He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. 

Indeed, because according to Fritz Oswald was only asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means. It had nothing to do with a size estimate by Frazier!

Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch.  Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.

Frazier said that Oswald carried a "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". He may well have been wrong in his estimate, to the extend that he estimated the bag to be larger than it really was. As for the content, that's an entirely different matter. Frazier allegedly said that Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods, but that could have been a lie on Oswald's part and the bag could indeed simply have contained Oswald's lunch after all.

Here's the background to that; Oswald wants to go to Irving to make up with Marina after a fight the previous weekend (exactly what Marina and Ruth Paine both said) so he asks this 19 year old kid, Frazier, to take him there. When Frazier asks why, do you really think Oswald would tell him that he is going there to make up with his wife?... Or would he give him some excuse, like "picking up curtain rods"? Having told Frazier the cover story on Thursday, Oswald simply repeated it on Friday when Frazier asked him again about the package..... 

He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it!  A ridiculous and dishonest claim.

You have not a shred of evidence that DPD officers returned to the TSBD to look for "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" after Frazier mentioned it while being polygraphed.

During the initial search on Friday afternoon they had no reason to look for a flimsy sack, because they had already "found" the heavy bag and jumped to the conclusion that this was the bag in which the rifle was brought in.

The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. 

John already replied to this one. No need for me to repeat it again. I can't help it when you are just to dumb to understand it.

He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance.  A real lulu. 

Why is that dishonest? Can you even explain how people even would have known about that paper bag before the WCR was published? You are the one who is living in cuckoo land to believe that everybody would have had instant knowledge about what investigators were looking at.

The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle.  If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years.  They did not.

Complete BS... After the publication of the WCR there would have been no point in coming forward. The entire argument you are trying to make is pathetic. Just because you can't think of a work-explanation for that bag and just because nobody came forward to claim it (as far as we know) does not automatically justify the conclusion that it must have been Oswald's bag and that he used it to carry a rifle. In fact, the bag found at the TSBD contained no traces of anything to even remotely conclude there had ever been a rifle in it. 

These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.

And you take them seriously enough to constantly reply to them with lies, misrepresentations, strawman, hand waving and a repetitive pattern of stupidity.


And once again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done (again) is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Why do you keep running away from that, Richard?

In which Martin denies relying upon a polygraph and in the same breath relies on a polygraph!  You can't make that sort of idiocy up.  What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?  Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?  I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.  It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again.  There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play. 

[Walt Cakebread]

Where did you get this info?

Oops...I meant Lee Oswald was not a smoker.....  But I wonder if BRW also was a non smoker?

[Richard Smith]

Please provide evidence that the building was thoroughly searched for a lunch bag.  Is there any evidence that the lunch rooms were searched at all?  What a ridiculous argument.  Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found.  He must have brought in a rifle too.

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.  Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?  The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.  They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.  The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was. 

[Walt Cakebread]

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.  Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?  The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.  They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.  The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.

The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found

 The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever reported to have been found .

[Richard Smith]

The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found

 The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever reported to have been found .

You are on the path to wisdom grasshopper.  A hazy sort of revelation begins to emerge!  Such a bag was not reported to have been found because it never existed!  Not because there was no search for it as stupidly claimed.  Instead they found a similar but somewhat longer bag.  And whose prints were on that bag? 

[Martin Weidmann]

In which Martin denies relying upon a polygraph and in the same breath relies on a polygraph!  You can't make that sort of idiocy up.  What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?  Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?  I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.  It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again.  There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.

What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?

And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
 
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?

Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.

I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.


I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying. 

No, you have given me the explanation of a mentally impaired child who, against mounting evidence, is desperately trying to find a way to explain away why it could not simply be that Frazier did not recognize the bag shown to him as the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier because it wasn't the same bag!.

Frazier described the bag he had seen Oswald carry as a flimsy five and dime shop bag. Whatever gave you the idea that Frazier was in error when he dismissed the TSBD bag, other than of course your desperate need to keep the TSBD bag in play.

Frazier estimates the size of the bag..... You say he was mistaken, but you were not there.

Frazier says the bag fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand...... You say Oswald could have carried the package protruding outward, but you did not see him carrying it that way.

Frazier says, while being polygraphed, that the bag they showed him wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry....... You say he was not only in error, he even did not know himself that he was in error and thus answered honestly, but you have nothing more than a biased opinion for that claim.

You see the pathetic pattern?

It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again. 

I didn't backtrack one bit.... You made your usual silly strawman argument and as usual it went nowhere.

There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.

Translation; I really haven't got anything remotely plausible to counter Martin's arguments with, so I'll just keep on repeating that the TSBD bag was the bag Oswald carried that morning no matter what the witness who actually saw it says.

[Martin Weidmann]

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.  Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?  The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.  They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.  The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.

Talk about dishonesty!... Frazier also said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". That's the lunch sack John was talking about. The one you claimed (without a shred of evidence) was searched for and never found.

Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? 

This is hilarious coming from the guy who claims everything Frazier said was in error unless it was something that fits his biased theory.
Frazier had no way of knowing what was in the bag and thus he could never confirm anything of the kind.

The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it. 

No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
You keep repeating that the bag "had Oswald's prints on it" when the reality is that it had several other prints on it as well and only two parcials prints belonging to Oswald.... if Latona is to be believed, that is. Unfortunately, the silver nitrate he used to find the prints destroyed them as well so no independent verification was ever possible.

And even if there were prints from Oswald on that bag, so what? The bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald had been working that same morning. The prints could have gotten on the paper bag simply by him moving it. But that's not important or valid to dishonest Richard, right? 

They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.

Actually, the stupidity is all yours, poor Richie! The TSBD bag was found in the afternoon and shown to Frazier at 11.30 PM that same evening. It is at that time that Frazier denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry and also the time he described the bag that he had seen as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". You claimed that such a bag was searched for but never found and that was a lie! There is no record whatsoever to show that the DPD returned to the TSBD after obtaining Frazier's description to look for such a bag.

The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.

And here is the outright lie again.... The DPD did not even search the building good enough on Friday afternoon, because they failed to find Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he had used that morning. They did not find a flimsy bag because they never looked for it and after Frazier gave them the description they never went back and searched for it. Your entire argument is bogus and invalid.

[John Iacoletti]

What a dishonest idiot.  Why are you babbling about a lunch sack?  Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.  Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning?  I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?  The DPD found such a long bag during their search.  Only it was a bit longer.  It had Oswald prints on it.  They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it.  That is a very stupid argument even for you.  The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious.  No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.

Insults don't make your ridiculous argument any better.  Answer the question, Richard.  Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found.  Does that mean that there was no Harold Norman lunch bag?