Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kennedy Videos


Recommended Posts

"The 2017 ACP/CMA National Collegiate Media Convention was held in Dallas between October 25 and 29. Sixth Floor Museum Curator Stephen Fagin was invited to moderate a conversation with award-winning journalist and author Hugh Aynesworth as a keynote program at the Sheraton Hotel"

Published March 29th. 2018. 

 

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You must be crashing some servers with the amount of information out there!

These Living History - series are pure gold IMO. Thanks to the Museum for publishing them. 

(About to maybe set a new record in the category of idiotic questions, - regarding the Aynesworth/Frazier - Living History videos.)

If so, I apologize in advance. (Terrible concentration and memory these days, - for two reasons.)

As well, maybe should post in another thread. Will remove if irrelevant to the topic of this thread, - which are the videos themselves. You, David, - are the creator of it,- so I'll delete if requested. (If I do not delete them before that myself,- when finding out it is a ridiculous post of nonsense, and no logic). The nitpicker in me never gets done. Exhausting. 

 

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Frazier - video from 2013, and the Aynesworth - video, - published today:

Aynesworth : "He came out the front door, - and in fact he ran into a friend of ours -- who was asking for a phone; Pierce Allman. But anyway, he comes out the door, - he walks four blocks up Elm Street, - and he gets on a bus".

---------------------------------------------------------

B.W. Frazier : (2013; from the same Living History series at the Sixth Floor Museum - Youtube - channel)

"...and then I walked out, -- to the corner of the building, right there, where Houston comes up beside the building. And I was talkin to someone,... - it was a lady, - and I looked, (pause)...to my (left?), and come walkin along the side of the Texas School Book - building, -- was Lee Oswald." 

Fagin: "walking along this side of the building (Houston street)?

Frazier: "Yes, Houston Street. -- So he'd come around from off the dock. There. And, - so he, - he walks up, and I'm talkin to this lady. He didn't say anything, and ah, - he crosses Houston,  - I watch him cross Houston, as I was talkin to the lady. He gets over to the side of Houston, and then he crosses Elm, and somebody said somethin to me, and I turned, - and he was about half way across the street, -and when I turned back; he was gone in the crowd, - I don't know what happened to him. But I didn't worry too much about that, because, ah, - it was several places around there that you could go and eat a sandwich. And I remember askin him that morning, when he was ridin in with me --" 

Frazier: "I says; -- Where's your lunch?"

He said, "Oh Im gonna buy it (off the truck?) today". 

"I said: okay."

"Well..I didn't think about what he told me about buying it off the truck." 

Insert: (here my limited English-vocabulary-ear, has serious trouble interpreting his accent)

Frazier continues: "He said mmm; he'd buy his lunch; 

he said": "I was buyin my lunch today".

Frazier: "And I, - I don't like to use the word assume, -- but I thought he was talkin about the..."

(?) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAh1pGZiLxE#t=36m55s)

Frazier: "But it were...." (interrupted)

Fagin: "There was no doubt in your mind, that this was Lee Harvey Oswald?"

Frazier: "He/it was."

Fagin: "Could you see the expression in his face, -- is there anything you can tell us about the way he looked?"

Frazier: "Ahmm, It was nothing indifferent/different about Lee. Expression on his face was, ahm - he looked perfectly normal. -- And that's the last time I remember seeing him".

-----------------------

So Lee: 

* Went to buy lunch, - went back(!) into the TSBD, - for then to exit through the front entrance, encountering Allman ?
** Came around from the back, - went across Houston, - then Elm, - and didn't (or did) buy lunch, - then left the area, continuing to his rooming house ?  ( Aynesworth/Allman mistaken/semi-mistaken/lying )
*** Came out the front entrance, - encountered Allman, - went inside again (!), either through the front, or the back of the building, for some strange reason -- for then to come out from the back, off the dock, --  in order for Frazier to observe this?
**** Came out the front exit, - encountered Allman, - and then left the area, and so on. ( Frazier mistaken/misremembering/lying? (Again, he seem sincere to me)
***** Other countless explanations of various ridiculousness ?

I don't know what the consensus here, - is on this. It takes time reading up on several years of absence.
So if these are idiotic questions, - I apologize in advance. Again. 

Anyway, a fascinating account from Aynesworth, reporting with his flag-pencil on his unpaid utility-bills. Encountering this screaming ("up there, up there!") , (and pointing), --  witness (who?), which got him physically removed by Police, when finding out he was a reporter. After according to Aynesworth , really saw Oswald, apparently in the 6th floor-window - and described him "so perfectly." Who again, later (the witness) "was scared to death."

And which FBI-agent drove him to the theater ? 

.... no I'll just stop rambling now. Should've had a nitpicker-guard by my side. 

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Edit: endless nitpicking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trygve,

It's quite reasonable to critique Buell Frazier's statements regarding his alleged sighting of Oswald on Houston St. within 5 to 10 minutes after the shooting. As far as I am aware, the first time Buell ever said those things was in his interview with Gary Mack in 2002 (see video/audio below).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISUhXaldpNmN2QmM/view

Here are my thoughts on this (via a 2010 post)....

"A FEW NOTES:

The most interesting parts of [the] 2002 interview with Wesley Frazier
are when he totally contradicts some of the things he said in 1963 and
1964.

For example:

In the 2002 interview, Frazier actually tells Gary Mack that he saw
Lee Harvey Oswald "5 to 10 minutes" AFTER the assassination, as Lee
was walking south on Houston Street. Wesley said he then lost Lee in
the crowd after Oswald had crossed Houston Street. Frazier said he
thought Lee was "going to get him a sandwich or something, so I really
didn't think anything about it".

But when we look at Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit (which was written by
Wesley within hours of the assassination), we find this:

      "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today
[11/22/63], and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the
first floor." -- BWF

Frazier also completely changed his mind in 2002 about the source of
the three gunshots he heard on November 22nd. He told Mack in 2002
that the shots came from "above" him. But in 1964, he told the Warren
Commission that the shots came from the railroad tracks on top of the
Triple Underpass. Wesley even drew a circle on a Commission exhibit
(CE347) to indicate the area where he said he heard the shots coming
from:

CE347:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0484b.htm

      "These railroad tracks there is a series of them that come up
over this, up over this overpass there, and from where I was standing,
I say, it is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like
it came from over there, in the railroad tracks." -- Buell Wesley
Frazier; WC Testimony; 1964

So much for 39-year-old recollections, huh?

Maybe it would be better to simply not interview witnesses thirty-nine
years after an event has taken place. You just never know what a
witness is going to "remember" after so many intervening years.

Such "newer" interviews are interesting to see and listen to, but many
of the recollections being recounted by the witness become garbled,
semi-incoherent, and inconsistent with things the same witness has
said in previous interviews and depositions. And such inconsistency
only tends to muddy the waters even more when it comes to
investigating the JFK murder case.

I'm guessing that Gary Mack was in a mild state of shock when Wesley
Frazier told him on 6/21/02 that he had seen Lee Oswald walking along
Houston Street "5 to 10 minutes" after the assassination.

If that were true, of course, it would mean that Oswald did not leave
the Texas School Book Depository Building by way of the front
entrance, but instead he left via the back door of the building.

I, however, place more faith in what Wes Frazier said on the day of
the assassination itself, when he said he did not see Lee Harvey
Oswald at all "after about 11:00 AM today"."

-- DVP; January 25, 2010

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks !

The timing of his observation ,was one of my questions. Appreciate that one. 

And also haven't had the time/energy yet, - to search for his earlier statements regarding this. Spared me that one too. 

Probably won't have the time to see/hear this 2 hour - interview tonight (past midnight here) - before collapsing. So, wouldn't know pr. now, if Gary confronts him with his contradiction in relation to his earlier statements. 

Guess how memory works, --  in general , is a science in itself; but the fact, - that our memories change with time, is indesputable. And that the closer (the recollecion of said) it is in time, - the more reliable it is.  I.e. we can remember what we want to remember, - and dependant on how much it is continually focused on over time , - the recollection of , - for instance an event, - is slowly replaced , - - erasing the actual / factual event , as of how it really happened. 

But these folks , - I just don't get how they can change/contradict themselves in that degree, in regards to earlier statements - when knowing that these were written down/published/recorded, etc. etc. -  thus being official , - and  will stand forever in records, - so everyone, including themselves, can go back and see , what they stated back then. Unless they forget even that too, - or have the impression/opinion that these earlier statements were incorrectly taken down. (For instance). Too many examples. 

Like this example with Frazier. If he is alive today, - or not , - I don't know, --- but he must , during all these years, -- have been made aware of that he contradict himself, in more than one instance ? And his subsequent explanation to that , if so.

There will hopefully always be explanations, if requested. Not going into the subjective reasons for these, - if given. Too many factors depend on that.

 

 

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trygve V. Jensen said:

...wouldn't know...if Gary [Mack] confronts him [Buell Wesley Frazier] with his contradiction in relation to his earlier statements.

He didn't confront him with it at all. And that's something that is very aggravating, particularly since Gary Mack was well-versed in almost every aspect of the JFK case, so he no doubt knew during the 2002 interview that Frazier was telling him something that didn't match his earlier statements.

I kept wanting Gary to say to BWF --- But, Wesley, how do you explain the fact you said in your first-day affidavit that you didn't see Oswald at all on November 22nd after about 11:00 AM? Now you say you saw him just 5 or so minutes after JFK was shot? What gives?

But Gary never asked Frazier anything like that. Nor have any of the several other interviewers who have interviewed Frazier since 2002. None of the interviewers seem to even care about (or they are just unaware of) Wesley's "I saw Lee / I didn't see Lee" contradiction. ~big shrug~

EDIT....

Trygve,

FYI----

There's a video (C-Span) version of the 2002 Mack/Frazier interview available as well. It's in 2 parts, here....

https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1

https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know yet. Thanks for that one as well ! ----- That is - can't even find a word for it........instead , -  I just join that shrug.

Someone must have asked him this. Stephen Fagin, surely didn't - but that was a setting with a big audience, for starters. Gary M.'s interview sounds ( and looks surely  - thanks to your latest link) more intimate.

Gary must have known, - and reacted, in some way.

Still haven't gotten through the entire interview. Probably tonight.

Keep skipping back, over and over,  like a goldfish would.  Was meant to take notes, and will.  Probably better tactic.

My imagination must be playing tricks;  - when starting to "hear between the lines" , - it may ( :-) ) be a sign, that it is too late in the evening . Trying to dechipher things out of , tone of voice, - what sound to be unnecessary continous repeatings, - etc. etc.  ------ can't be much of value, - nor in touch with reality.

Edit:

Soon the word "thanks" has been worned out. --- Appreciate it !

Also the link to your JFK assassination arguments (979).

 

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2018 at 11:23 PM, David Von Pein said:

Maybe it would be better to simply not interview witnesses thirty-nine

years after an event has taken place.

Maybe.

And maybe, - it is a waste of time and energy, what I am currently doing. But I am for some reason still doing it; - as spending unnecessary energy, -- is one thing I am skilled at.
Personally, picking up info here and there, which was forgotten, - so atleast that's worth something.

A word like "frustrating" wouldn't cover how it would be to decipher all the snippets of weirdness in this 2-part interview with B.W.F. If it is any point, doing so, is another question.

---------

Just on the above mentioned subject of him seeing Lee O. after the shooting, despite saying he didn't (in 1963;

At 12m38s of part 2:

Gary M.: "Did you see Lee Oswald at this time, - after the assassination ?"

B.W.F. : (pausing), "No."

Gary M.: "Have you heard subsequently, how he left the building?"

B.W.F. : "Well, there's been a lot of rumours, ahm, when, - when we were, - when we were outside of the building, before we gone in, ahm, - I remember seeing Lee come from the do,- the , dock - area. And walk up the street beside the Texas School Book Depository - building, - and there was so many things goin on, - and, and I saw him as he walked up, and he went across Houston Street. And I thought he may had been goin get him a sandwich or somethin, so I didn't really think anything about it. And I lost him in the crowd, and I don't know what happened from there."

(39 years is one thing, - but he contradict what he said 25 seconds ago.)

Gary M.: "How long after the assassination do you think this was ?"

B.W.F. : "Oh, probably, -- 5 to 10 minutes probably."

Gary M.: "So, - you remember seeing him briefly, -- coming down Houston Street, along the side of the building ?"

B.W.F. : "Yes."

Gary M.: "So that told you, that he must've gone out the back door, by the loading docks"

B.W.F. : "Yes, - by the loading docks, thats exactly right."

Gary M.: "And did you see him cross Houston Street ?"

(B.W.F. repeating that he saw him cross Houston,-then Elm,- then lost him while turning to answer someone asking him some question).

(Gary M. asking him again what he just said, ; Gary knew, and was probably trying to digest his mild state of shock you were describing. Instead of just asking B.W.F. directly,  - he seems to try asking it indirectly, in a gentle way) ;

Gary M.: "Could he have come out the front door of the Depository ?"

B.W.F. : "No."

Gary M.: "No." pausing/grunting. Frustrated. (he now improvises a few questions, cause he never expected this).

Gary M.: "So, --- how far away from him, do you think you were, - when you saw him" ?

B.W.F. : "The closest I, - I got to him, - when he was walkin up the, - along the TSBD, comin from the dock - area, -- was probably, -- probably 10 - 12 feet."

Gary M.: "Do you remember anything about him, -- did he look -"

B.W.F. : "No he didn't look any different, - or act any different than he did. There were so many people, and so much chaos, and everything all around -- " (repeating he thought he was getting a sandwich)

Gary M.: "And how was he dressed, - do you remember; was he in his t-shirt, or did he have a shirt on, or --`?"

B.W.F. : "He had a jacket on."

Gary M.: "His jacket."

B.W.F. : "Had his jacket on that day."


(Gary, just get silent for a while (feels like an eternity), - then just saying "Let me regroup here" - then seemingly just decide to move on.)

(40 minutes earlier (not accounting for brakes etc.) B.W.F. did not remember what Lee O. was wearing that day; when Gary M. asked him what he was wearing the morning, when he came to his house, with the curtain rods. "Guessing since it was November, that they probably had jackets on, or long-sleeved shirts").

-------------------------------------------------------------

I totally agree in that the closer in time, - a recollection of an event is, - the more reliable it is. ( Should be, in general).

The theory (which some would characterize as microscopically possible) ;  - this recollection so many years later, - depict what really happened, ---- there must have been a reason that he said something else back then. Both in 63, 64. -- And (2002) (25 !) seconds before stating otherwise. One could choose to believe that the last example (25s), could indicate something , (not of much importance to the case, - but rather about his character, and then again maybe one of the reasons why Gary do not confront him with said).

Or he said something else (back then), and both the Dallas Police, and the WC, just stated otherwise (changed testimony). ( Yes I know the latter is conspiratiorial thinking, to a high, and surely to some, --  very unreasonable degree,   ---  and at the same time;  to others, - not at all).

Some claim he lies , and was CIA, - -  etc. etc. (Same( and others) could argue he now tell the truth, because of guilty conscience, which in itself could have several explanations. ) I.e. - he was involved, - or knew Lee O. was innocent, - etc.

To me he sounded and seemed sincere, in his Sixth Floor Museum - session from 2013. Really in all his interviews. Then some would argue, - some things, are not what they  seem, -- nor sound.

One thing is mis - remembering, - another is changing one's mind. Or maybe not.  Anyway, - there just might be that the increasing number of contradictions, - increases with just that; time. Because of faulting memory.

Whether or not Lee came out the front, - or the back, may be / would be of importance (for some aspects of the case), -- for all I know. I haven't gotten up to speed on anything. Though certaintly it would not be more clear, - if he did/didn't , as - as you say (as I understand it), - these recollections so many years later, - have the value of interest. Not much more.

Or.

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old news I posted then, --- thank you ! (Should've noticed ( I now see) that link further down on the page you earlier linked to).

How in earth to find time to go through it all.

You collecting all this information, - and categorizing it all , should be appreciated. Spares time to search etc.

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...