Buell Wesley Frazier

[Walt Cakebread]

I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

Mr "Smith" Why do you hide behind an alias?    It simply verifies that you're not an honest person......

I thought CTers believed Frazier?  Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

I thought CTers believed Frazier?

This statement simply proves that your reasoning is flawed....( Which is something that any intelligent person following these debates is acutely aware of)   Ct's are NOT of one accord on every aspect of this case....However I believe that all CT's are bonded together under the knowledge that the Warren report is a CROCK!!. 

Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?

Frazier's estimate of the bag length ( approximately 27 inches) does not have to be "trusted" or accepted without verification.   Linnie Mae Randle  corroborated the length of the sack that she and Frazier said they saw....Both of them said the sack was no longer than 28 inches long.

You really don't know much about this case do you Mr "Smith" ?

[John Iacoletti]

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

So you're cherry picking what Fritz recalled 8 months later over what he recalled a few days later.  Because of course you are.

There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.

This is just your usual false bravado.  There is no evidence that CE142 is the bag that Frazier or Randle saw.  They said it was not.

Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.

No, it's just another example of how bogus your reasoning is.  Some object is found (eventually) on the 6th floor and from that you leap to Oswald carried it in that morning and it had a rifle in it.  It's special pleading because you don't leap to the conclusion that other objects on the 6th floor were related to the assassination, just because they were found on the 6th floor.

There's no need to discredit anything since your "evidence" is not actually evidence of anything at all.  You have a bag that nobody ever said they saw in Oswald's possession with no sign of a rifle ever having been in it.  So what?

[John Iacoletti]

There's no reason to assume that either Frazier was lying or Oswald was lying.  Frazier saw a package.  Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package.  The only thing that doesn't align here is that "Richard" wants to just assume that the package was 38 inches long and contained a rifle, despite there being ZERO evidence for that.

[Walt Cakebread]

And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.

No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.

So does the soda bottle.  Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.

Was one ever looked for?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?

False again.  Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.

Mr "Smith"...   Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.

Mr Iacoletti...   Was one ever looked for?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?

I believe that Detective Day DID find a brown paper sack that was "SHAPED like a gun case"....  He said that he folded that sack up and put it in his pocket and only Roy truly had seen the gun case shaped sack....   Where is that sack??

[Bill Chapman]

When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?

At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where  he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along ---and at speed, I might add--- with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?

Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)

*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.

[John Iacoletti]

At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where  he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?

If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken.  That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.

Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*

Correction:  Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.

[Walt Cakebread]

At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where  he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?

Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)

*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.

Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*

So you think Lee was about 7 foot tall?     I'd hasten to remind you Billy Bob that Linnie Mae said that Lee was carrying the sack in his right hand and it nearly touched the ground.....If the sack had been three feet long Lee would have been draggin it behind him....unless you think he was about seven feet tall......

You probably should THINK before you post .....Billy Bob......   

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Sadly for you, no one ever saw LHO with a bag inside the TSBD. Furthermore, no bag was ever shown to be in the alleged SN either.