Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

Martin goes on and on claiming that Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag must be correct.

An amazing and typical LN misrepresentation of the facts.

Therefore, by direct implication, Oswald must have carried a bag of that length into the TSBD.

Indeed. A far better conclusion, supported by evidence, than the LN version, where because Oswald's print (amongst those of others) was found on a bag (made from TBSD materials) at he place where he worked, it means that must be the bag he brought into the building.

It didn't vanish into thin air.  But Martin "couldn't care less what he did" with that bag!  LOL.  Why?  Because no such bag was ever found in the TSBD or ever accounted for in any way.

No search for such a bag was ever conducted in the TSBD and if the bag did not contain the rifle (something which Richard and his ilk still can not prove it did) then it doesn't matter what he did with the bag he carried into the building.

Oswald himself denied carrying any such bag.  He says that he carried only his lunch sack.

Which would mean that he most certainly didn't carry the bag found at the TSBD, but Richard prefers to ignore that.

In addition, no one else who had access to the 6th floor ever explained why the long bag was there.

More misrepresentation. There is no record of all the people who had access to the 6th floor ever being asked about the bag! Richard just makes up the claim as he goes along.

It appears to be a singular such bag in that building with no work-related purpose for being there.

It appears?.... Pffff

It has Oswald's prints on it.  There is zero doubt that this is the bag Oswald carried into the building that morning

And there it is; Oswald's prints were on a bag found at his place of work and never mind there were other prints on it as well, this must be the bag Oswald carried into the building. Richard showing off his ever present propensity for jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing at all.

but because we don't have a time machine to confirm it, Martin can play the endless contrarian.

If you think we need a time machine to confirm it, then it's beyond obvious that you have understood fully that you do not have the evidence to confirm it in a normal way. Pathetic.

This gets better and better.  No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found.  The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items. You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it?  The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States?  Wow.   No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose?  Unreal.  Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?  And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way?  Nothing to see there.  How about this?  It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.  The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor.  That accounts for Oswald's bag.  There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size.  End of story. 

You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor.  Can you understand why these are different situations?  Apparently not.  If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location.  It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation.  If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it.  Oswald lied about the bag.  So figure out why that is important.  And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch.  Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did.  All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building.  It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found.  Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?

[John Iacoletti]

DVP's "two things that prove Oswald's guilt":

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.

Not only has he not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that CE139 was "Oswald's rifle", but there is no physical evidence whatsoever that CE139 was "used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally".

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63,

Who said it was "bulky"?  And seen by whom?  Jack Dougherty said he was empty handed when he entered the building.  Frazier only saw him enter the north annex area, not the building and Frazier admitted to Tom Meros that he was far enough behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see the package when Oswald entered the annex.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihrdJbwPbaw at timestamp 6:30.

and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

   There is no evidence whatsoever that would tell you what was in the package that Frazier saw, and certainly no evidence of it being CE139 or any other rifle.  It's not a "lie" merely because you believe something else was in there.

[John Iacoletti]

Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.

Really?  Where did you get this idea?

[David Von Pein]

Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.

Really?  Where did you get this idea?

You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:

Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but those CTers think that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.

Of course, the above "deep-sixing" comment really doesn't apply to a lot of CTers, because the trend today is to pretend that NO BAG existed at all and to call both Frazier & Randle liars re: the bag. (Silly, isn't it?)

[David Von Pein]

This is a common argument among the "Oswald did it" faithful.  If you disagree with their speculative conclusions (which are designed to make the evidence fit their predetermined narrative), then you just don't know how to "properly" apply "logic" and "reason" (which means agreeing with their assumptions).

It's pure rhetoric in lieu of evidence, which is what their entire argument amounts to.

Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.

Thanks, John.

[John Iacoletti]

This gets better and better.  No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found.  The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items.

Cite, please.  Or an admission that you just made this up will also suffice.  Have you figured out yet how Norman's lunch bag "vanished into thin air"?  Maybe CE142 was Norman's lunch bag, because nobody ever found another one, so there is "no doubt" that it must be that.  Do you realize how stupid your argument is?

You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it?

Do you want us to believe that your made-up "explanation" constitutes evidence?  PS. how do you know where CE142 was found?  Do you have any evidence besides "cop said so"?

  The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States?

"authorities indicated".  Really?  That's your evidence?   

Wow.   No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose?  Unreal.  Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?

Cite please.  And why does it matter whether CE142 has a "work-related purpose"?  What does that even mean?  Did dominoes have a work-related purpose for being in the building?

And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way?  Nothing to see there.  How about this?  It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.  Adding "end of story" to a conjecture doesn't actually turn it into a fact.

You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor.

Where did you get the idea that Oswald "denied carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier"?  Fritz said nothing in his report written from memory several days after the fact that he said anything to Oswald about Frazier's size estimate.  It's not even clear when Frazier was first asked to estimate the length.

  Can you understand why these are different situations?  Apparently not.  If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location.

First of all, you don't know what he did or did not say during interrogation.  Secondly, what if he didn't know what "its location" was?  Have you found Norman's lunch bag yet?

  It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation.  If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it.

If, if, if.  Argument from imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:

Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.

I don't even think that's accurate.  Maybe you should just stick to speaking for yourself.

[John Iacoletti]

Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.

Wrong on two counts.  I'm not a CT, and I've never based an argument on the arrogant notion that my opinion constitutes evidence of anything, or that disagreeing with my conjectures is somehow a lack of "logic".  It's lazy posturing.  If you have evidence then present it or admit that you are making a rhetorical argument because that's all you have.