Buell's "off" day (aka: oh yeah)

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, kinda like Marina's statements, huh?

Yep.

[John Iacoletti]

Liar = teller of untruths

blatant = obvious

intentional = knowing

Which of these do you not understand?

I understand them all, thanks.  Except your first claim is flat out wrong.  All lies are untruths, but not all untruths are lies.

When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?

I backed up my claim with evidence (affidavit and video of interview).

No, you merely showed that the statements were contradictory.  You forgot the blatant and intentional part.

That seems to sufficient to everyone but you.

Whatever gave you that idea?  Do you think everybody here agrees that Frazier blatantly and intentionally lied?

If you are claiming that my claim is wrong. Then at least tell me what the heck you think is wrong with it.

It's unsubstantiated because it assumes facts not in evidence.  Namely that Frazier knowingly made a false statement.

[Charles Collins]

I understand them all, thanks.  Except your first claim is flat out wrong.  All lies are untruths, but not all untruths are lies.

When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?

No, you merely showed that the statements were contradictory.  You forgot the blatant and intentional part.

Whatever gave you that idea?  Do you think everybody here agrees that Frazier blatantly and intentionally lied?

It's unsubstantiated because it assumes facts not in evidence.  Namely that Frazier knowingly made a false statement.

I understand them all, thanks.  Except your first claim is flat out wrong.  All lies are untruths, but not all untruths are lies.


Not my claim. Look it up in the dictionary and argue with them. That is exactly where I got it.

When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?

How could he possibly not.

No, you merely showed that the statements were contradictory.  You forgot the blatant and intentional part.

How could they not be.

It's unsubstantiated because it assumes facts not in evidence.  Namely that Frazier knowingly made a false statement.

How could he not know?

[John Iacoletti]

Not my claim. Look it up in the dictionary and argue with them. That is exactly where I got it.

Name the dictionary that says that all untruths are lies.

lie²
/lī/
noun: lie; plural noun: lies
1. an intentionally false statement.

When did you demonstrate that Frazier knew that one of these statements was untrue?

How could he possibly not.

Really Charles?  That's your demonstration of intent?  Does your world view not recognize innocent mistakes or ambiguous statements?

The affidavit says "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor".  He could very well have meant that he didn't see Lee again prior to or during the motorcade.  Why do you jump to malicious intent?

[Charles Collins]

Name the dictionary that says that all untruths are lies.

lie²
/lī/
noun: lie; plural noun: lies
1. an intentionally false statement.

Really Charles?  That's your demonstration of intent?  Does your world view not recognize innocent mistakes or ambiguous statements?

The affidavit says "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor".  He could very well have meant that he didn't see Lee again prior to or during the motorcade.  Why do you jump to malicious intent?

Name the dictionary that says that all untruths are lies.


My claim: Liar = teller of untruths

Not my claim: All lies are untruths, but not all untruths are lies.

Really Charles?  That's your demonstration of intent?  Does your world view not recognize innocent mistakes or ambiguous statements?

Again, I am talking about this specific case. Not generalizations. Again, how could Buell Frazier possibly made an innocent mistake or be ambiguous in this instance?

The affidavit says "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor".  He could very well have meant that he didn't see Lee again prior to or during the motorcade.  Why do you jump to malicious intent?

Too bad for you that he didn't indicate anything of the sort. And he has had over 55-years to dispute this. If that is your claim, you need to support it with something besides your imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

My claim: Liar = teller of untruths

That's correct.  Where you go off the rails is then concluding that because Frazier told an untruth, he is therefore a liar.

Too bad for you that he didn't indicate anything of the sort. And he has had over 55-years to dispute this. If that is your claim, you need to support it with something besides your imagination.

Uh...if you think Frazier "was blatantly and intentionally lying" then you need to support it with something besides your imagination.

[Charles Collins]

That's correct.  Where you go off the rails is then concluding that because Frazier told an untruth, he is therefore a liar.

Uh...if you think Frazier "was blatantly and intentionally lying" then you need to support it with something besides your imagination.

I did already. Your suggestion  otherwise is baseless and totally  a figment of your imagination.

[Paul May]

There’s another alternative.  Gary Mack, as curator of the 6th floor museum had become both friend and confidant to BF.  I had asked Gary about inconsistency’s in statements by Frazier throughout the years. He told me bluntly as the years passed, Frazier was a beaten and demoralized individual. Drinking, his inability to find and hold a job, to find any happiness in his life all impacted his mind and memory 50 years after the event. Gary had said he was a decent human being and part of the tragedy of 11/22/63.