Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The bag was an invention, David. So, you really DO believe what I suggested in my previous post --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it. So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really xxxxty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options. What part of "The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag. " do you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? --- If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing. Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all. The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtually proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63. Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid xxxx and patsy framer. And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little xxxx, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he? .... Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) It'd be nice if Mark and Bob would have the decency to spell Colin Crow's name correctly. I have done so in all of my posts here. So why would anybody think there was an E in his name? ~shrug~ CLEAR proof that this person's entire interest is to provoke and divert. and in this of all threads. he is wasting my time, and some of yours. let's not support/promote his agenda, huh? i'm done with this thread, and with his comments as much as possible. Edited June 23, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) i'm [sic] done with this thread, and with his comments as much as possible. Yeah, we've heard that before from you already, Glenn. That lasted about 10 hours last time. BTW, my berating people who can't spell people's names correctly isn't proof of my devious intent to sidetrack anyone. (But it's humorous that you would actually have that odd state of mind about my intentions.) I just hate it when names are misspelled or when other words are misspelled. Such as Glenn Nall's refusal to use his shift key to capitalize the words I and I'm. He does this all the time. Just laziness, I surmise. But I couldn't stand to leave my posts in such sloppy disarray. Thank goodness for the "Edit" button. Bye, Glenn. Your posts saying everything is "irrelevant" are valuable pieces of CTer denial for my site (archived below). Thank you for those. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? --- If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing. Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all. The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtually proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63. Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid xxxx and patsy framer. And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little xxxx, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he? .... So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size? p.s. You do not have my permission to reprint any of my posts on your site. Edited June 23, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) p.s. you do not have permission to reprint any of my posts on your site. I don't need your permission. Your posts are public property after you make them visible on a public forum (like this one). And in keeping with Ray Mitcham's current theme in this thread (that theme being: "Inconsistent Statements"), let's now compare Ray's words quoted above with these words Ray said to me just three days ago.... "Glad to see you are keeping a collection of my postings, David. I'm flattered." -- Ray Mitcham; June 20, 2015 All I can do now is.... ~shrug~ Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size? I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size? I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP Right. so you believe he was right about seeing the bag, but wrong about the size. I think the word for that is cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Ray,As I've said before, everybody cherry picks. I do it. You do it. All God's children do it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. And the JFK case is no different.But as I said to Thomas Graves at this very forum just two months ago...."In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff"." -- DVP; April 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Ray, As I've said before, everybody cherry picks. I do it. You do it. All God's children do it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. And the JFK case is no different. But as I said to Thomas Graves at this very forum just two months ago.... "In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff"." -- DVP; April 17, 2015 Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff. Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman. Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff. Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman. You have your position as a total believer in the holy book of Warren. Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down. When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone. Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere. Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra. Am I right or am I right? Or am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down. When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. Your "bullet through the shirt" has gone pear shaped. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. Who said I advanced the theory? So who's the one who is dreaming? And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone. Not at all. How would he know what size bag the rifle would fit into? He made the bag theory up. Once he and his sister had decided on the size they couldn't retract. His bag was just like the one not photographed in the sniper's nest. None existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now