A Few Questions for Fetzer about Ozzie and Lovelady

[David Von Pein]

Some people just don't remember dates very well, Randy. Apparently Wesley Frazier is one of those people. It couldn't be more common among human beings. And I cannot understand why you're elevating his hiring date to a level of such significance. Yes, it's significant that he was hired AT ALL at the Depository. But why is the EXACT DATE so important for Wesley to remember?

[David Von Pein]

The guy [Wes Frazier] was destined to be a nobody for eternity until he became LHO's personal chauffeur.

Well, yes, I suppose that's true. But do you remember the exact dates when you were hired for every job you've ever had in your life? (And I'm sure at least a few of those jobs of yours involved a situation where you had to serve as personal chauffeur to a future Presidential assassin. Right? )

BTW, what's the point of bringing up Wesley Frazier's bad memory anyway? Are you suggesting he was LYING when he was vague about his TSBD hiring date? If so, please answer this for me:

What possible reason would Buell Frazier have had to lie, or become deliberately vague, about something so incredibly mundane and innocuous?

Edited March 12, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Randy Gunter]

BWF didn't seem to have a memory problem for the WC:

Joseph Ball: Was it sometime around the middle of October, do you think, would that be close to it?

Buell Wesley Frazier: It could have been because it was sometime in October because I remember I went to work there on the 13th and I had been working there, 4 or 5 weeks and then he come there.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Randy Gunter

[David Von Pein]

Oh, come now, Randy. He gave his WC testimony in 1964. He was talking to Gary Mack in June of 2002! Can't you cut the guy a LITTLE slack? Geez.

Edited March 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

I guess its pretty easy to forget the single most important thing which ever happened in your life.

Which led to you almost being indicted for the president's murder.

Starting to work at the TSBD was the biggest single event in Frazier's life?

--Tommy

[Randy Gunter]

Did GM ask BWF about the below statement? I may have missed it.

"Garland G. Slack, who also testified before the Warren Commission, claimed that he saw Oswald practicing with a rifle at a firing range on 10th November, 1963. He added that Oswald had been driven to the driving range by "a man named Frazier from Irving"."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Colby would have me make my argument without appealing to evidence! He

even begs the question by ignoring that the only reasonable interpretation of

Lee's remark that he was "out with Billy Shelley in front" is that he was out with

Bill Shelley in front during the assassination. Otherwise, the fabled homicide

detective would have failed to has him the crucial question of having an alibi.

That kind of reasoning may impress David Lifton, who is the man who claims

that all the shots were fired from in front, which cannot account for the miss

that injured James Tague, the miss that hit the chrome strip, the hit to JFK's

back of the head, or the one-to-three shots that hit John Connally. I am not

surprised to find men of the quality of Len Colby and David Lifton are aligned.

None of this makes any difference to the strength of the arguments that show

Doorman has to have been Oswald. Here I break them down into four VERY

SIMPLE ARGUMENTS, which I have no doubt will not penetrate minds that

are impenetrable. The first argument, for example, is based on observation:

(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Therefore, Oswald's shirt makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.

The second is based upon observation, the FBI photographs and report,

and the principle of identity (the same person cannot be wearing a short-

sleeved shirt and a long-sleeved shirt at one and the same time), namely:

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

The third argument is based upon observation and the same principle of

identity, where the differences between them are rather easy to observe:

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

The fourth argument is a simple deductive argument by elimination as follows:

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

Scientific reasoning is based upon hypothesis formation, observation, and both

deductive and inductive reasoning. There is nothing about them that ought to

challenge a reasonable mind. Moreover, we have further proof that Lovelady

and Checkered Shirt Man were not at the same places at the same times, i.e.,

Further comparisons reveal our critics would have Checkered Man's shirt open and closed at the same time:

There is much more, of course, but if this brain trust wants to disprove the conclusion that Oswald was

Doorman, then they have to dispute either the truth of the premises or the reliability of the reasoning to

their conclusions. So point out which premises or reasoning you dispute or else accept the conclusion.

But only if you want to qualify your position as "rational", which doesn't seem to matter to most of you.

Lovelady said he was in front of the TSBD at the time JFK passed by. Several of his coworkers said he was as well. Were they all lying? If not where is he in the images? If they were lying where was he? And why haven't any witnesses turned up who said they saw him somewhere else? Why would they all have lied?

By contrast no one said LHO was there, not even even Oswald himself. Rather he said he was in the lunch room where he was seen moments after the shooting by a couple of witnesses. If LHO had been in front of the building why did he place himself closer to sniper's nest? Why would some go to the lunch room if they had just seen the President getting shot?

And please don't try to derail this thread with talk of chins and shirt patterns etc.

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

Did Gary Mack ask Buell Wesley Frazier about the below statement? I may have missed it.

"Garland G. Slack, who also testified before the Warren Commission, claimed that he saw Oswald practicing with a rifle at a firing range on 10th November, 1963. He added that Oswald had been driven to the range by "a man named Frazier from Irving"."

I can't recall if the stuff about Slack came up in the Frazier/Mack interview or not. But it is interesting.

I've always held out hope that Oswald's presence at the Sports Drome Rifle Range could be positively proven in some way. (Although at this point, I don't think that's possible.)

Because if it could be proven that Oswald (the REAL Oswald, not some make-believe "Oswald imposter" invented by conspiracists) really did take his rifle to the rifle range shortly before Nov. 22, it should forever silence the critics who love to say this:

There's never been any proof that Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano at all. Therefore, how are we supposed to believe he killed JFK if he never practiced with his gun in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9G5kVXC8i4

Edited March 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Of course, Jimbo. Yet another "cover-up" by those scumbag Dallas cops. Right?

[Karl Kinaski]

Lovelady said he was in front of the TSBD at the time JFK passed by. Several of his coworkers said he was as well. Were they all lying? If not where is he in the images? If they were lying where was he? And why haven't any witnesses turned up who said they saw him somewhere else? Why would they all have lied?

By contrast no one said LHO was there, not even even Oswald himself. Rather he said he was in the lunch room where he was seen moments after the shooting by a couple of witnesses. If LHO had been in front of the building why did he place himself closer to sniper's nest? Why would some go to the lunch room if they had just seen the President getting shot?

And please don't try to derail this thread with talk of chins and shirt patterns etc.

For this I love you, Len ;-)

[Karl Kinaski]

Lovelady said he was in front of the TSBD at the time JFK passed by. Several of his coworkers said he was as well. Were they all lying? If not where is he in the images? If they were lying where was he? And why haven't any witnesses turned up who said they saw him somewhere else? Why would they all have lied?

By contrast no one said LHO was there, not even even Oswald himself. Rather he said he was in the lunch room where he was seen moments after the shooting by a couple of witnesses. If LHO had been in front of the building why did he place himself closer to sniper's nest? Why would some go to the lunch room if they had just seen the President getting shot?

And please don't try to derail this thread with talk of chins and shirt patterns etc.

Len,

Regarding your last question. Buell Wesley Frazier went into the basement of the TSBD, alone, after he watched the President get shot. He went down there, he said, to eat his lunch.

Lee

Really? Frazier: Oh, the president is shot. I better have my lunch right now." LOL

[Len Colby]

Colby would have me make my argument without appealing to evidence! He

even begs the question by ignoring that the only reasonable interpretation of

Lee's remark that he was "out with Billy Shelley in front" is that he was out with

Bill Shelley in front during the assassination. Otherwise, the fabled homicide

detective would have failed to has him the crucial question of having an alibi.

LOL you're a funny guy Fetzer you repeatedly complained that people like Robin and Greg who aren't buying your odd theories avoided answering simple questions when in fact they answered them repeatedly. Now when you are asked simple questions you avoid them like the Wicked Witch of the West to water. So:

So were Lovelady and all the people said he was in front of the TSBD all lying? If not where is he in the images? If they were lying where was he? And why haven't any witnesses turned up who said they saw him somewhere else?

Pending clarification of a few points I've dropped why LHO questions except for, why have no witnesses appeared who said they saw him in front of the TSBD.

These questions are quite simple, your avoidance of them is quite telling, it makes it plain to anyone paying even minimal attention you do NOT have answers for them. If you don't answer the questions, you lose, if you give evasive you lose, your only hope is to try to provide forthright answers.

The crap about the shirts is irrelevant to this thread, you've already posted it numerous times each in the various other threads where this topic has been 'debated', everyone following them has seen it ad infinium. This thread is about the witness statements regarding Lovelady's and LHO's locations at the time the Altgens photo was taken.

LEE:

You said that Frazier said he went to lunch after the shooting please post the quote.

OTHERS

I hope you can refrain from carrying on side talk on this thread, doing so takes the pressure off Fetzer to give straight answers.

[Greg Burnham]

I would like to point out: Fetzer went back to Special Pleading immediately in his reply just as I predicted. In his first sentence he paraphrased

Fritz' notes and relied upon them as accurate because "Fritz must have asked where LHO was during the shooting"-- just as I said he would. He

avoided the "changed his shirt" portion, as predicted.

But, instead of cherry picking the evidence, what If we were to take ALL of Fritz' notes at face value? Well, IF Oswald was in fact doorman "out

front with Shelly", then it would also mean Oswald went back home and changed his shirt into a shirt identical (according to Ralph Cinque) to the

shirt HE WAS ALREADY WEARING as doorman! But...why? Why the need to change into an exactly identical shirt? This "obviously" makes no sense

and is absurd on its face. If that is true, and Fetzer has agreed that "even the WC didn't think Oswald changed his shirt" then that makes Fritz' notes

UNRELIABLE as evidence due to their ambiguity.

Do you realize that in a court of law, unless given a foundation that was allowed by the court to accept only one portion of the notes while rejecting

the remainder, Fritz note, in its entirety, would not be allowed to stand as evidence in the manner in which Fetzer is attempting? The note would

cancel itself out and be treated as though it did not even exist. Or it could be treated similar to perjurious testimony, whereby the jury is advised that

it is free to reject the testimony (notes) in its entirety.

Without that portion of the Fritz' note the only "evidence" of LHO in the doorway resides in Mr. Potato Head-ish drawings! All eye witnesses place

Lovelady as Doorman...even Lovelady! Indeed every scintilla of evidence places Oswald elsewhere. It is no more difficult to place Oswald in the

sniper's lair than it is to place him in the doorway...and since we KNOW he wasn't the assassin he also wasn't doorman. On the other hand, it is

very easy to place him in the lunchroom.

...

Edited March 6, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

VERY EMBARRASSING POST FROM BURNHAM! I have explained that even the Warren Commission concluded that he HAD NOT CHANGED HIS SHIRT. And that he had not changed it is corroborated by the remarkable similarity between the features of the shirt on Doorman and the shirt on Oswald! This is one of the oddest convolutions of a straightforward argument I have ever seen--and EVEN HERE, which is saying something. This has nothing to do with "special pleading". It is directly refuting the idea that he had changed his shirt. If any person or body would have had an interest in his having changed his shirt, that would have been the Warren Commission. Yet they affirmed that he had NOT CHANGED HIS SHIRT. And it is a further indication that Greg has lost his ability to reason when he IGNORES THE INCREDIBLE IMPROBABILITY a changed shirt would resemble Doorman's. So Burnham has attempted to INVERT THE FORCE OF THE PROOF. The shirts were the same!

We aren't in a court of law and Burnham's claims about Fritz's notes are unavailing. Does he REALLY THINK that Will Fritz did not ask Lee where he was DURING THE SHOOTING? That would have been a gross malfeasance of duty. He had to ask Lee where he was during the shooting. Lee replied, "out with Billy Shelley in front", which fits no other time. Shelley and Lovelady walked down to the railroad yard and past the grassy knoll immediately after. We have identified the person who appears to be Shelley (whose face was obfuscated), no doubt because having him there would have raised too many questions about what Lee had told Fritz. He also makes the absurd assertion that "every scintilla of evidence places Oswald elsewhere"! You have to be kidding me? Then why has this issue become such a source of controversy? How dumb are we supposed to be? Better yet, how incompetent is GREGORY BURNHAM, who at a single stroke SWEEPS ALL THE PROOF HE WAS WHERE HE SAID HE WAS UNDER THE RUG? I thought Robin Unger was bad, but this performance from Gregory Burnham is preposterous!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Has Burnham suffered from a brain fart? I mean, this is ridiculous. These

threads have demonstrated that there is a mountain of proof that Oswald

was Doorman. I have patiently spelled them out, time and time again, for

those who are having any problems following them. They are very simple.

None of this makes any difference to the strength of the arguments that show

Doorman has to have been Oswald. Here I break them down into four VERY

SIMPLE ARGUMENTS, which I have no doubt will not penetrate minds that

are impenetrable. The first argument, for example, is based on observation:

(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Therefore, Oswald's shirt makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.

The second is based upon observation, the FBI photographs and report,

and the principle of identity (the same person cannot be wearing a short-

sleeved shirt and a long-sleeved shirt at one and the same time), namely:

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

The third argument is based upon observation and the same principle of

identity, where the differences between them are rather easy to observe:

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

The fourth argument is a simple deductive argument by elimination as follows:

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

Scientific reasoning is based upon hypothesis formation, observation, and both

deductive and inductive reasoning. There is nothing about them that ought to

challenge a reasonable mind. Moreover, we have further proof that Lovelady

and Checkered Shirt Man were not at the same places at the same times, i.e.,

Further comparisons reveal our critics would have Checkered Man's shirt open and closed at the same time:

There is much more, of course, but if this brain trust wants to disprove the conclusion that Oswald was

Doorman, then they have to dispute either the truth of the premises or the reliability of the reasoning to

their conclusions. So point out which premises or reasoning you dispute or else accept the conclusion.

But only if you want to qualify your position as "rational", which doesn't seem to matter to most of you.