Peter Makres: I was in Dallas last weekend and, when I went to Irving to tour the Paine house (which has been restored to its 1963 state as a museum) I had the opportunity to meet Buell in person. He joined us for the tour and so I spent a couple of hours in his company. He is a completely sincere, honest
individual and your claim that he is a manipulated witness is absurd, like
many of your claims. We also stopped by the house where he and his sister
lived, I've seen the driveway and the window that Linnie Randall saw
Oswald through. It is a very small window. There is no reason whatever to
assume that their story is coerced-the only odd thing is the disparity
between the size of the bag found on the sixth floor, and the size of the
package Oswald carried by Buell's recollections. However he really had no
reason to pay a lot of attention to it. If he was coerced (and his sister
as well) into turning a lunch bag into a larger package, why not go all
the way and get him to say it was a package of sufficient size to hold the
disassembled rifle? Buell looked straight at me and said the package was
simply too small. He also said that to accept that the rifle was in the
bag is the simple answer and if we accept that, we don't have to go
anywhere else. If not, then of course there is the question of how did the
rifle get into the building. He realizes that, of course. Buell was there
and I wasn't, so I didn't press him very hard on it. Lord knows he's been
pressed on this over the years. He doesn't like it when it is implied that
he was simply mistaken over the size of the package-but it is difficult to
reconcile his recollections with the size of the bag we see being carried
out of the depository by detectives following the assassination. I think
we have to go with the bag that was found, that is the only way we can
really go. But as to Buell being coerced, forget that one Ralph. He is
completely sincere. And oh yes, forget about Oswald being in the doorway
Ralph. He wasn't there.
Ralph Cinque: You're not thinking straight, Peter. If Oswald carried a bag that was too small to contain a disassembled rifle, then there is no reason to think it contained any kind of weapon. And therefore, there was no reason for Oswald not to admit having brought such a bag. But, he didn't. He insisted that all he brought to work was his lunch. That's also what his wife said.
Furthermore, why wasn't the other bag and its contents found? His lunch got eaten and whatever bag that came in was thrown away. Apparently, nobody bothered to retrieve it. But, what happened to the "smaller bag" that Buell talked about and claimed to have seen? Why wasn't it found?
You say Frazier wasn't manipulated? Then have him contact me. My email is email@example.com
I want to sit down with him in front of a computer for half an hour. I believe I can prove to him that it was Oswald in the doorway. We see Oswald's features on the Doorway Man. We see his exact clothing. We see his habitual stance of clasping his hands, left over right, in front of his body. And more. It's Oswald; it can't not be Oswald; and if anyone should realize it, it's Buell Frazier.
Buell, if you're reading this, it's time for you to come clean. You know Oswald was innocent. Would you like to help him? Then you need to admit- publicly- that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. It doesn't matter why you said otherwise to the Joseph Ball back in 1964. You can undo the damage right now by admitting that you were wrong, that you were pressured to say that. You have the power to undo 50 years of lies. Oswald was a victim, and so were you. But, it's time for you to get on the right side of justice. And, that side is the side of Oswald innocence and Oswald in the doorway. Contact me, Buell. We can change the world.