RAY MITCHAM SAID:
So you believe he [Buell Wesley Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken-down Carcano.
No?
You just believe the parts you want to believe?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?
You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".
But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright liar) when he said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22/63.
I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "liar" 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.
But you MUST think Frazier WAS a liar regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?
And yet you don't seem to realize the hyprocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:
"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham
Pot meets up with Kettle yet again.
There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....
IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?
If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?
But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged liar has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existent bag way too small.
Brilliant, huh?
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
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.
If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.
Which is it -- "No bag" or "too short bag"?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)
I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.
Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.
Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:
"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."
Hilarious.
INSTANT REPLAY....
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
The bag was an invention, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So you really do believe what I suggested previously --- 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 shitty 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.
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
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?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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 virtual 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 liar 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 liar, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he?
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
How would he [B.W. Frazier] know what size bag the rifle would fit into?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out.
But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding?
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
He [B.W. Frazier] made the bag theory up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked?
And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess.
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
Once he and his sister had decided on the size, they couldn't retract.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why not? People change their minds all the time.
David Von Pein
June 23, 2015
