Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Then went inside with the curtain rods  (Read 118248 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #240 on: February 03, 2021, 11:07:33 PM »
Advertisement
It's truly pathetic that you can't even remember what you wrote an hour ago.



That was a dig

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #240 on: February 03, 2021, 11:07:33 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #241 on: February 03, 2021, 11:15:17 PM »
Says the clown who treats this forum as his personal display of colossal ignorance and attempts at being "clever".

How do you know what Buell was thinking?  Was this before or after he was threatened by the "other Frazier"?

Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

He said "evidence", not just a restatement of the same claim.


Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

How would Buell or Linnie Mae know what length the bag needed to reduced to???   When Fritz was informed that the paper sack that had been presented as the sack that Lee had used to transport the carcano was too short to have been used for that purpose.....Fritz immediately retorted..."Well, he must have broke the rifle down then, and I'm sure he did"

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #242 on: February 03, 2021, 11:15:24 PM »
Who said you needed to prove that?
>>> You did: Quote from: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 06:45:38 AM "I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it"

That's not me asking you to prove it. It is me concluding that you can not prove it.

Quote
What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.
>>> What I actually need to prove is nothing, especially not to those who want to treat this discussion platform as their personal court-of-law.

Run boy, run as fast as you can. Your claim that Oswald brought a broken down MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag is bogus unless you can prove it. It seems you can't prove it, so the conclusion that your claim is bogus is justified.

Quote
BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.
>>> "automatically mean" Where did I claim that?

You seem to get tied up in your web of misrepresentations, bogus tales and bold statements (implied or otherwise) that you can't back up with evidence.

Quote
Buell saw the bag at a glance on the back seat of the car. Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded (another hint that an if-guilty Oswald was trying to, in effect, shrink the true size of the bag and thus its contents).

Buell was "honest enough" (or stupid enough) to reveal that he didn't want to be remembered forever as the guy who drove Oswald to work. Yeah, no pause for thought there, huh... no discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements.

What the hell are you doing? Do you think before you write? First of all, by running away you've already shown us all that your claim that Oswald took a rifle to the TBSB is bogus, because you can't back it up with evidence. Yet here you are, trying to cast doubt on the size of the bag. And you're doing it rather stupidly, by first claiming that Frazier only saw that back "at a glance" (apparently intended to suggest that he didn't see it well enough to determine it's size) and then following it up with the claim that Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded, which of course means that he did get a good look at the bag after all. After such a glaring contradiction, I'd say we can ignore all your opinions about Oswald's intend and Frazier's honesty.

Quote
Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.

Great... back to square one. Present the evidence for that claim or be branded a liar who makes up "evidence" whenever he needs it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #242 on: February 03, 2021, 11:15:24 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #243 on: February 03, 2021, 11:22:46 PM »
In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.

You're not investigating anything. Instead you are just making wild claims you can (or will) not back up with evidence.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #244 on: February 03, 2021, 11:24:28 PM »
Says the clown who treats this forum as his personal display of colossal ignorance and attempts at being "clever".

How do you know what Buell was thinking?  Was this before or after he was threatened by the "other Frazier"?

Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

He said "evidence", not just a restatement of the same claim.

I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #244 on: February 03, 2021, 11:24:28 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #245 on: February 03, 2021, 11:26:46 PM »
You're not investigating anything. Instead you are just making wild claims you can (or will) not back up with evidence.

Name a few wild claims

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #246 on: February 03, 2021, 11:29:28 PM »
I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law

Translation; "I was expecting that you take my word for whatever it is I say, so why are you harassing me about all this evidence stuff?"

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #247 on: February 03, 2021, 11:33:23 PM »
Name a few wild claims

And waste my time? No way. I'm not playing your little game.

Your posting history is full of wild claims..... but here's one;


Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.

and don't give that "That was a dig" crap....

Btw, just so you understand, this time the quotation marks were used to actually quote you.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
« Reply #247 on: February 03, 2021, 11:33:23 PM »