Re: 2008 INTERVIEW WITH WESLEY FRAZIER
Gil Jesus
"The Warren Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier
and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented ... and has
concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the
bag."
"I wasn't surprised," Mr. Frazier said. "They seemed to have a
prearranged agenda when they questioned Linnie and me. Our refusal to
agree with their agenda simply caused them to state that we were
mistaken."
GEEESHH ....EVEN THE WITNESSES SENSED THE COMMISSION HAD A "PRE-
ARRANGED AGENDA ".
But the trolls are too deeply in denial to see it.
Bud
> Buell Wesley Frazier, now 64 years old, was recently interviewed by
> Hugh Aynesworth for The Dallas Morning News. Here's the article:
>
> www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/111608dne...
"The are a lot of kooks out there" - Linnie Mae Randle.
> And a related video with Wesley Frazier:
>
> www.dallasnews.com/video/dallasnews/hp/index.html?nvid=299906
>
> ============================================
>
> RELATED VIDEOS:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgH4R7ICpw
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW1q16ZZR2c
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1hk0G32J0c
>
> www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=dvp1122&search_query=Wesley+Frazi...
>
> ============================================
Gil Jesus
Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being
involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police
officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator.
THE COMMISSION PRESSURED WITNESSES ?
"In Washington, Mr. Frazier said, he was "pressured" to change his
recollection."
Ms. Randle, who was also a leading witness, said recently that when
she and Mr. Frazier testified before the Warren Commission, "they
tried to get us to say that package was much longer than we recalled,
but that wasn't true."
The commission kept pushing, Mr. Frazier said. Could it be that he was
traumatized by the horror of what happened or embarrassed that he
hadn't been more observant?
"I know what I saw," he said, "and I've never changed one bit."
IT'S ALL HERE:
NOW WHO SAYS THE WITNESSES WEREN'T INTIMIDATED BY AUTHORITIES ?
Gil Jesus
commenting on the "kooks" who believed that her brother was involved
with Oswald in killing Kennedy.
Here's the part the Budnik DIDN'T post:
"Though I did nothing wrong," he ( Frazier ) said, "some of them think
I am guilty, that I was involved with him.
And there are people out there still today who think that I helped
him, that he and I were in cahoots on that, and you just never know
who you're talking to."
His sister, Ms. Randle, ......agrees that Mr. Frazier is super-careful
and somewhat withdrawn but says she understands why.
"Even my children, at the time, we just didn't talk about it because
you just never know who you're talking to. There are a lot of kooks
out there."
Bud
> Looks like Budnik likes to take things out of context. Randle was
> commenting on the "kooks" who believed that her brother was involved
> with Oswald in killing Kennedy.
No, idiot, that isn`t what she was said. If you read the article,
she lives in a different state, she wasn`t there when Frazier made his
comments. The article takes bits of two different interviews out of
context to make points the writer of the article wants to make. Randle
was speaking about her brother`s general distrust of people since this
occurred, but doesn`t specify who these people are. You just read
something into what she said that doesn`t exist in what she said. You
need to read her statements apart from Frazier`s, since they were made
apart from each other. The writer puts them together, that doesn`t
mean they did.
> Here's the part the Budnik DIDN'T post:
>
> "Though I did nothing wrong," he ( Frazier ) said, "some of them think
> I am guilty, that I was involved with him.
>
> And there are people out there still today who think that I helped
> him, that he and I were in cahoots on that, and you just never know
> who you're talking to."
>
> His sister, Ms. Randle, ......agrees that Mr. Frazier is super-careful
> and somewhat withdrawn but says she understands why.
>
> "Even my children, at the time, we just didn't talk about it because
> you just never know who you're talking to. There are a lot of kooks
> out there."
See, idiot, she does not identify who the kooks were. The writer
just put it together with something Frazier said, which overloaded
your tiny brain.
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/11...
Gil Jesus
> The writer
> just put it together with something Frazier said, which overloaded
> your tiny brain.
Oh...and you know this HOW ?
Did you speak to the WRITER ?
Please produce something OTHER than speculation.
Bud
> On Nov 16, 9:03 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > The writer
> > just put it together with something Frazier said, which overloaded
> > your tiny brain.
>
> Oh...and you know this HOW ?
I can read.
> Did you speak to the WRITER ?
Don`t need to. I read what the author wrote.
> Please produce something OTHER than speculation.
The author of the article used LMR to confirm her brother`s mistrust
of people. She did not specify in the article who she considered
kooks.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ef915e94-9c32-416d...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
It seems that their agenda was to investigate the possibility of a
conspiracy involving Oswald and Frazier. Hardly the actions of a police
force actively burying the idea of a conspiracyon orders from high up.
Isn't that one of your many pet conspiranoid theories? You are so very, very
stupid aren't you bigot?
Bud
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef915e94-9c32-416d...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > In its report, released in the fall of 1964, the commission said:
>
> > "The Warren Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier
> > and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented ... and has
> > concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the
> > bag."
>
> > "I wasn't surprised," Mr. Frazier said. "They seemed to have a
> > prearranged agenda when they questioned Linnie and me. Our refusal to
> > agree with their agenda simply caused them to state that we were
> > mistaken."
>
>
> > GEEESHH ....EVEN THE WITNESSES SENSED THE COMMISSION HAD A "PRE-
> > ARRANGED AGENDA ".
How is it a pre-arranged agenda to follow the evidence where it
obviously leads? Oswald was at location "A", the Paine`s house where
his rifle was kept. Oswald went to location "B", the TSBD, where his
rifle was found. Between those two locations, Oswald was seen carrying
a long, paper covered object. The paper that covered that object was
found a few feet from where the shots were fired from, with Oswald`s
prints on it. Oswald denied to investigators that he carried any long
paper bag at all. Just because you kooks are idiots intent on
misunderstanding this event does not mean the folks doing the actual,
real investigating were.
> It seems that their agenda was to investigate the possibility of a
> conspiracy involving Oswald and Frazier. Hardly the actions of a police
> force actively burying the idea of a conspiracy on orders from high up.
Excellent point, Sam. When they had an actual person to look at who
might have been involved, they vigorously (some might say
overzealously) investigated. But kooks will only claim this was
misdirection to draw attention away from the real conspiracy. It is
always this way with kooks, the authorities are damned if they do, and
damned if they don`t. The 9-11 kooks clamored for an investigation,
when they got one, they attacked it anyway. They are only satisfied
with being told what they want to hear, no matter how stupid what they
want to hear is.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f50ab1d754527936
Sam Brown did, indeed, make an excellent point above. And it's a point
that certainly goes away from the notion (believed by many, many CTers
of the Earth) that the authorities--pretty much ALL of the
authorities--were wanting to hang a guilty label on ONLY OSWALD right
after the assassination.
If anything that Buell Frazier told Hugh Aynesworth is true (or even
partially accurate), it means that the Dallas police and FBI were
trying their darndest to EXPOSE a conspiracy between Oswald and
Frazier (and perhaps Linnie Mae as well).
And those certainly are not the actions of cops and Feds who had an
"agenda" to pin the whole thing on ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald.
As far as Buell Wesley Frazier is concerned, I don't think it was
unusual or out of the ordinary for the police to suspect Frazier of
possibly being "involved" in a plot with Oswald in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination.
If I had been in the DPD's shoes, I would have certainly investigated
the man who drove the assassin (and the assassin's rifle) to work on
the same day when the President was killed.
If the DPD had NOT looked into Frazier's possible involvement with
Oswald as a co-conspirator, then the cops wouldn't have been doing
their job properly, IMO. Because the person who took the killer to
work in his own '53 Chevy the same day the murder occurred is BOUND to
be looked at sideways -- at least until Buell Frazier can clear
himself (which, of course, he did--to the satisfaction of the police
and FBI....otherwise Frazier would have been detained for a longer
period of time--and he would have been charged with some crime in
connection with JFK's death....which we know did not happen).
My thanks to Sam Brown for a very good and astute observation.
Sam's post also tends to further illustrate the following fact:
Since Lee Harvey Oswald was so obviously the only person who fired any
shots at President Kennedy on 11/22/63 (and since no credible evidence
has ever surfaced in 45 years to prove that Oswald was working in
concert with any behind-the-scenes co-plotters) -- even when LNers are
confronted with something that might (on the surface and at first
glance) give the appearance that there was more to JFK's murder than
just one kooky Marxist named Oswald acting alone, a reasonable and
common-sense-filled "LN" explanation can almost always be arrived at.
As Sam Brown did in the post linked at the top of this message.
==================================================
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, LINNIE MAE RANDLE, AND THE PAPER BAG:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c
==================================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f50ab1d754527936
>
> Sam Brown did, indeed, make an excellent point above.
Slamin' Samantha Brown, she doesn't wear a jockstrap, troll -- so
there's no sense kissing her sorry ass....
Ya need a live kiddo!
Sam Brown
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:06bfec2f-a53a-4254...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
tims...@gmail.com
Good point, Sam. Well made! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps If anyone wants to see the rather parlous state that the JFK-CT are
in they only need read David *aeffects* Healy's gibbering and
incoherent response to Sam below. Still, what can we expect? This
fellow is a published author on <snicker> *Z film alteration* after
all, LOL! TB
pps And his editor is/was Jim Fetzer, a noted <snicker> 9/11
conspiracy believer! TB :-)
ppps And his best mate is <snicker> Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes, still
runnin' from further discussion of his failed Z369 theory! TB :-)
On Nov 17, 12:24 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef915e94-9c32-416d...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > In its report, released in the fall of 1964, the commission said:
>
> > "The Warren Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier
> > and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented ... and has
> > concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the
> > bag."
>
> > "I wasn't surprised," Mr. Frazier said. "They seemed to have a
> > prearranged agenda when they questioned Linnie and me. Our refusal to
> > agree with their agenda simply caused them to state that we were
> > mistaken."
>
> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/11...
aeffects
Slamin' Sammy made a point? She stab DVP with her pen or sump'in?
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> ps If anyone wants to see the rather parlous state that the JFK-CT are
> in they only need read David *aeffects* Healy's gibbering and
> incoherent response to Sam below. Still, what can we expect? This
> fellow is a published author on <snicker> *Z film alteration* after
> all, LOL! TB
envy will get you no where, troll. I've told you, you haven't the
money or the nads to ask for my autopgraph
> pps And his editor is/was Jim Fetzer, a noted <snicker> 9/11
> conspiracy believer! TB :-)
>
> ppps And his best mate is <snicker> Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes, still
> runnin' from further discussion of his failed Z369 theory! TB :-)
see Jim at the Washington National Press Club, soon! :)
<snip>
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Good to know that I'm still popular among the trolls.
aeffects
> In article <0a56fa0c-5c3f-4044-a710-9591c362b...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
can you believe it, I'm actually getting bored slapping trolls around.
And retirement looms, yeah!...