Buell Wesley Frazier: "Where’s your Rider?" Part B

Alan

I asked before but got no response, so here goes again - is there any evidence that Buell came into money after the assassination? It has been raised before in situations like this that where someone who appears to be involved in a cover-up seems to come into a lot of money. Was there some carrot or was it all stick that is keeping him silent?

Stan Dane wrote:Alan

I asked before but got no response, so here goes again - is there any evidence that Buell came into money after the assassination? It has been raised before in situations like this that where someone who appears to be involved in a cover-up seems to come into a lot of money. Was there some carrot or was it all stick that is keeping him silent?

Mick Purdy

Alan,
No large amounts of money coming his way that I'm aware of since the assassination. 

Just looking at his demeanour over the journey and of course I could be way off, but he certainly has the look of someone who has received a bit of stick.

Stan Dane wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker
 
Alan, either Mr. X was tapped to get on board because of his connections to certain individuals by using his personal problems which would be fixed with an assassination as the bait, or Mr. X tapped into his military/intel/Cuban connections using an invasion of Cuba as bait. Either way, fixing his own problems was his main priority. Any other outcomes were just cream. Using Cubans would also help muddy the waters.
--------------------
I wouldn't entirely discount the "deliberate miss" theory because it can work in just about any scenario. It may also cause the Walker shooting to take on a new perspective as a "practice run".

At the moment though, it hasn't got a lot of evidentiary support. Just something to keep in the back of the mind as a remote possibility.

Alan
 
So when you are saying Mr. X you mean there was a single individual driving the whole thing?  One thing that has always baffled me is how messy the whole thing is.  Either the people involved were like the keystone cops or something went badly wrong. So much of the cover-up seems like on the hoof improvising done rather badly. My impression from several essays and books is an awful lot of people know more than they let on. It's an extraordinary mess with far too many people knowing something. Why did so much messy improvisation have to happen? The KGB would probably just have put radioactive material in JFK's suntan lotion :0)  So in your opinion was this just a keystone cops operation which would have been laughable to most intel agencies or did something go badly wrong with the plan which required lots of desperate improvisation?

Greg Parker

Alan, I'm saying Mr X was involved - whether he drove the whole thing, or was tapped to get on board, I don't know,

Again, there was no all-powerful individual or group who planned this like unseen puppet-masters. That is a fallacy that has become entrenched. 

Strip this case of the dimensions caused by the name of the murder victim, and it really is not much different than the Avery case.

With Avery, he was framed for personal reasons in the original case, and then framed again because of his pending civil action over the first case. All very human and even mundane n human history and behavior, even as it was devastating for the individuals involved. 

The person I have in mind had the means, motive, opportunity and importantly, the connections. Whether he instigated the plan or was brought on board is the only question.  Truly was the "inside man". His job was simply to set the rabbit running (or appearing to be) and then set the hounds after him. The police would do what the police in Dallas always did.  They got their man, and the Reid Technique took care of making the case against him.

Stan Dane wrote:Alan

I asked before but got no response, so here goes again - is there any evidence that Buell came into money after the assassination? It has been raised before in situations like this that where someone who appears to be involved in a cover-up seems to come into a lot of money. Was there some carrot or was it all stick that is keeping him silent?

Vinny

http://www.richmond.com/news/special-report/jfk/people/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html

Although he was never charged, Frazier was still guilty in the eyes of many. For years, he had trouble finding work. His reputation in Dallas was tainted for decades. At 69, he still works.

Vinny

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130401-co-worker-who-drove-oswald-to-school-book-depository-recounts-dallas-darkest-day.ece

Today, Frazier lives in the Dallas area with his wife. He is mostly retired but works part time to supplement his monthly Social Security checks.
 
“Medicare pays less and less by the year,” he said.
 
Frazier still believes he’ll make a lot of money one day — somehow. He says he’s been writing a book about the JFK assassination and his relationship with Oswald.
 
After his speech at the Irving library, he walked into the warm spring night, still waiting for his ship to come in.

Stan Dane wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:Greg Parker
 
Alan, either Mr. X was tapped to get on board because of his connections to certain individuals by using his personal problems which would be fixed with an assassination as the bait, or Mr. X tapped into his military/intel/Cuban connections using an invasion of Cuba as bait. Either way, fixing his own problems was his main priority. Any other outcomes were just cream. Using Cubans would also help muddy the waters.
--------------------
I wouldn't entirely discount the "deliberate miss" theory because it can work in just about any scenario. It may also cause the Walker shooting to take on a new perspective as a "practice run".

At the moment though, it hasn't got a lot of evidentiary support. Just something to keep in the back of the mind as a remote possibility.

Alan
 
So when you are saying Mr. X you mean there was a single individual driving the whole thing?  One thing that has always baffled me is how messy the whole thing is.  Either the people involved were like the keystone cops or something went badly wrong. So much of the cover-up seems like on the hoof improvising done rather badly. My impression from several essays and books is an awful lot of people know more than they let on. It's an extraordinary mess with far too many people knowing something. Why did so much messy improvisation have to happen? The KGB would probably just have put radioactive material in JFK's suntan lotion :0)  So in your opinion was this just a keystone cops operation which would have been laughable to most intel agencies or did something go badly wrong with the plan which required lots of desperate improvisation?

Mick Purdy

This operation went exactly as planned.  

Task one was to kill JFK.  Job done.

Task two was to blame a patsy.  Job done.

Task one was easy.  Task two relied on some very specific things happening.  First and foremost was to create as much contradiction as possible in the record.  The job was to make it "messy" - as you describe.  The messier the better.  Get the Parkland doctors contradicting the autopsy doctors. Get the witnesses contradicting each other as to how many shots, direction of shots and what they saw happen when the President was hit.  Get Frazier contradicting his sister about the size of the bag.  Get Baker contradicting Truly and get Truly contradicting Baker.   Get as many witnesses as possible to contradict each other concerning the appearance of the Tippit suspect, the clothes he was wearing, the weapon, the ammo, and what direction he was walking. Get Shelley and Lovelady contradicting themselves.  Get Givens contradicting himself.  Get Holmes contradicting Fritz and Bookout.  Get the Warren Commission to contradict the FBI.  Get the Secret Service contradicting the CIA.  Get Shanklin contradicting Hosty and get Hosty contradicting Shanklin.  Get the contradictions in the reports.  Get as many as you can.  Get discrepancies in Oswald's height, his eye colour, his weight, and whether he was left or right handed into the record.  Even get a contradiction into the hands of Lee Oswald in the backyard photographs.  Get contradictions everywhere and then release the report. Wait just over a decade and then convene a new investigation that contradicts the last one.  Create more and more and even more contradictions - - and then lather and layer them onto the previous ones.  

And then, during all of this, you can sit back and watch the amateur researchers fight, argue, dismiss, and polarise each other for the next 53 years to the point that they turn themselves into a laughing stock.  

Job done.

Why bother creating a mess?  Well, Alan Dulles, Warrren Commission member and lifelong spook and professional liar, would probably tell you the reason to do this would be because the overwhelming majority of people cannot be arsed looking into anything themselves and will simply believe what they are told - -  and the small number of people who did look into stuff would spend YEARS unraveling the mess that had been created, and even then you had the media on-side to label them as kooks and oddballs, if they ever found anything important.  

I guess they believed that anyone who decided to investigate this themselves would, in short measure, be tripping over themselves following dead-ends, incomplete leads, complete horseshit and a multitude of red herrings.  

Job done.

Hasan Yusuf

Suffice it to say, the contradictions I have come across whilst researching this case have well and truly done my head in...

Terry Martin

I think Lee summed it up nicely.
 
The researchers today pretty much ignore the first point and concentrate on the second. It has become more about the "conspiracy" they are looking for rather than the assassination. "Task one was easy." And that's the one that is usually completely overlooked by the researchers who get such an erection thinking about nailing one of the government departments for the crime.
 
Those who spend all their time chasing the "leads" in the cover-up will merely waste their time.
 
Unless, of course, they know it was a coup d'etat.

Barto

BWF HSCA docs:

http://www.prayer-man.com/rokc-at-nara-2/

Vinny
 
Is that a portrait of Frazier on the wall?
 

Barto

Yes behind that philanderer..........

Thread rebuild complete!
 
You may now resume regularly scheduled posting!

Thanks, Stan

NYT NOv 23rd

Other than having to click on the article to read it , thx Bart.

" ...Behind that philanderer" haha gift from "50th Lips Sealed Society Luncheon"

That guy is Jim Leavelle.The woman is former first lady Laura Bush. This photo was taken at some exhibition in Dallas earlier this year.  Wonder what they are smiling about.

http://ochelli.com/podcasts/10142016-friday-rob-clark-the-lone-gunman-himself/

Thanks Barto.

Read esp the last page with Fritz wanting to have "busted" Oswald if only Hosty was not there......
This is a transcript of a Garrison Conference among his team.
Frazier is discussed quite a bit as well.

Found by Denis Morissette.

Nice and just a another confirmation as to how "this legend" Will Fritz did his thing. Just like he wanted to wack Frazier while questioning him.

Now isn't that just telling

I am a big believer that there was a shoot to miss plot that was manipulated. The crap rifle, the crap position of the sniper's nest etc makes sense. Also to create an excuse to invade Cuba only required an assassination attempt by a Castro-linked (or someone who could be made to look like one) person, not a successful assassination.   I call it the 'shoot to miss' model. As per that podcast posted above, the really wild shots could have been the shots designed to miss.

Another thought is this would have meant that whoever as to be framed for this was going to be framed not for murder but for an attempt or even what could have been spun as a protest gesture.  Probably the simplest scenario IMO is that in a shoot to miss plan the gunman was not meant to be caught and the framing would have been restricted to Patsy accomplices - prob LHO and/or Molina.

That of course never happened and I suspect it was either hijacked inside by CIA/military intel or perhaps it was an elaborate framing plan from the get-go where one team though they were just helping a shoot to miss but were manipulated into patsies for an assassination.

Welcome to the forum Alan. I've heard your theory being bandied about before and while I won't go as far as disregard it outright, I will say that it would be impossible to prove. I take your point but at the end of the day Oswald was left holding the bag and probably realised as much. I do agree with you that he may not have been the only patsy that day but let's not forget he managed to get away quite easily. I don't think he was killed to shut him up about any plot but simply because he had an alibi. By that stage he was the only suspect. I'm not sure if you are one of those who believe Oswald was somehow implicated in your assertion but I believe he played no part. His business at the TSBD was probably as an informer maybe to look into Molina but that's just a guess. A stunt to shoot and miss that took a sinister turn is less likely than an cold blooded shooter/ shooters. The invasion of Cuba that you argue is made even more possible by murdering the President and we know that didn't happen.

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:Welcome to the forum Alan. I've heard your theory being bandied about before and while I won't go as far as disregard it outright, I will say that it would be impossible to prove. I take your point but at the end of the day Oswald was left holding the bag and probably realised as much. I do agree with you that he may not have been the only patsy that day but let's not forget he managed to get away quite easily. I don't think he was killed to shut him up about any plot but simply because he had an alibi. By that stage he was the only suspect. I'm not sure if you are one of those who believe Oswald was somehow implicated in your assertion but I believe he played no part. His business at the TSBD was probably as an informer maybe to look into Molina but that's just a guess. A stunt to shoot and miss that took a sinister turn is less likely than an cold blooded shooter/ shooters. The invasion of Cuba that you argue is made even more possible by murdering the President and we know that didn't happen.

I have considered it in the past as well - mainly on the basis of "well, if the Walker attempt was a phony attempt..." and also the shocked look when he learns JFK is dead.

But as you say, impossible to prove. I'd go one step further and suggest it's also extremely difficult to muster any evidence for it at all, except the two points I made - neither of which are proven facts themselves, with the latter being mere assumption.  And I have actually looked for something - anything that might support it, including if civil defense authorities ever carried out simulated attacks. I even looked at how it might fit into Northwoods - but there was no plan within Northwoods which included simulated attacks on US officials.

Bottom line: as speculation goes, it beats the hell out of a lot of other speculation about what happened. But speculation isn't going to get the case reopened. That said, the possibility could be noted in a book or essay without making it a central thesis or article of faith.

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:Welcome to the forum Alan. I've heard your theory being bandied about before and while I won't go as far as disregard it outright, I will say that it would be impossible to prove. I take your point but at the end of the day Oswald was left holding the bag and probably realised as much. I do agree with you that he may not have been the only patsy that day but let's not forget he managed to get away quite easily. I don't think he was killed to shut him up about any plot but simply because he had an alibi. By that stage he was the only suspect. I'm not sure if you are one of those who believe Oswald was somehow implicated in your assertion but I believe he played no part. His business at the TSBD was probably as an informer maybe to look into Molina but that's just a guess. A stunt to shoot and miss that took a sinister turn is less likely than an cold blooded shooter/ shooters. The invasion of Cuba that you argue is made even more possible by murdering the President and we know that didn't happen.

yes certainly its purely speculation.  However, wrong or right,  a shooter that was a crap shot, a crappy rifle, a crap sight on the rifle, a crap awkward position in the window, a crap line of sight etc would have made a very nice set up for a shoot to miss scenario.  Would it have been beyond the resources of the CIA etc to place a decent rifle with a decent site at a better nest position within the TSBD?

alan wrote:

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:Welcome to the forum Alan. I've heard your theory being bandied about before and while I won't go as far as disregard it outright, I will say that it would be impossible to prove. I take your point but at the end of the day Oswald was left holding the bag and probably realised as much. I do agree with you that he may not have been the only patsy that day but let's not forget he managed to get away quite easily. I don't think he was killed to shut him up about any plot but simply because he had an alibi. By that stage he was the only suspect. I'm not sure if you are one of those who believe Oswald was somehow implicated in your assertion but I believe he played no part. His business at the TSBD was probably as an informer maybe to look into Molina but that's just a guess. A stunt to shoot and miss that took a sinister turn is less likely than an cold blooded shooter/ shooters. The invasion of Cuba that you argue is made even more possible by murdering the President and we know that didn't happen.

yes certainly its purely speculation.  However, wrong or right,  a shooter that was a crap shot, a crappy rifle, a crap sight on the rifle, a crap awkward position in the window, a crap line of sight etc would have made a very nice set up for a shoot to miss scenario.  Would it have been beyond the resources of the CIA etc to place a decent rifle with a decent site at a better nest position within the TSBD?

Yes quite possible, Alan but the end game was that the crap shot, crap rifle and sight and awkwardness led to the arrest and incrimination of LHO for murder and nothing else. I don't believe IMO that any shots were fired from the TSBD. There is a thread here by Ed Ledoux that argues that strongly and I'm of the same opinion. I think the shots came from somewhere else maybe the Dalyex building. Your hypothesis can easily be said it was part of the set up to frame Oswald without a shot being fired yet aloned missed. I know that the below window guys claimed they heard shots and shells fall from the top of them but after reading their testimony it sounds like a crock. IMO that was simply part of the frame up leaving the weapon  shells behind to divert attention from the better position the shooters struck from. Remember Dougherty only heard one shot while on the 5th and he kept working. That rifle and shells were put there to be found so the investigation could begin and end from there.

Paul - I agree that no shots ever needed to come from the TSBD. That would still be the case in a shoot to miss scenario whereby the nest was set up to look like that of a shoot to miss person. I still feel the nest looks like it was set up to look like that of an incompetent nut.  its almost like it was made to fit a lone nutter scenario BUT not one who made a successful assassination.  The nest, gun etc would be perfect to frame a nutcase who missed.  It looks like a nutters nest rather than a pro assassin's. Problem is JFK was assassinated and pinning that on an assassin from that nest, with that rifle, with that scope is not convincing. So i just wonder if it was originally set up to frame someone for killing JFK or was it set up to look like the nest of a lone nut who missed? It works far better for the latter than the former.  

Another mystery to me is why, if they had people in the building willing and able to set up the nest, and perhaps had the boss on board with the framing of a patsy, did they not find a pretext for sending LHO to the correct floors at the time of the assassination. All I can guess about that s perhaps the delay in the motorcade messed up the plan to get Oswald up there and detain him???

alan wrote:Another mystery to me is why, if they had people in the building willing and able to set up the nest, and perhaps had the boss on board with the framing of a patsy, did they not find a pretext for sending LHO to the correct floors at the time of the assassination. All I can guess about that s perhaps the delay in the motorcade messed up the plan to get Oswald up there and detain him???

Why risk being a puppeteer? Someone might notice you pulling the strings. Much easier to have an array of potential patsies to choose from and pin it on your main one if possible. If that doesn't hold, move on the next on the list.

No shortage of potential patsies in that building and with some effort, they did nail it on the main one.