BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Jerry Freeman]

Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

That is the address of where?

[Jerry Freeman]

Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 04:18:07 PM

Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag, doesn't mean that he wasn't 

Re-read that drivel...or was Jack blind? No... He stated that he saw Oswald enter for work and didn't see him carrying anything.
 

Their mother, Essie Mae Williams.  She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.
 https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_150_300.png

Another case of proving a negative. Mrs Williams did not see a bag...does not mean there was no bag. So far 2 people say they saw the bag. A dubious description of supposed bag from both of them. No one of the entire rest of all the employees in that building said that they saw any bag carried by Oswald that day. How many negatives is that?
 

[John Iacoletti]

That is the address of where?

That address doesn?t exist.

[Richard Smith]

Yes-------March 15 comes before March 23, and March 23 comes before March 24, and March 24 comes before March 26.

You still haven't offered an explanation for the dates on these forms, Mr Smith!

I, on the other hand have:
------------2 curtain rods were found by A. N. Other in the Depository
------------A. N. Other alerted someone in law enforcement
------------this someone passed the matter up to someone in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation
------------the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators had to 'resolve' the issue
------------the story of how they 'resolved' the issue is told in the clearest way by the dates which you can't explain!

As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
----------he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.

Now! Over to you yet again, Mr Smith, for your theory explaining the following:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

 

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

[Alan Ford]

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

Breaking News!!!

Mr Richard Smith confirmed earlier today that he still cannot come up with an explanation for the clear, unambiguous hard evidence that
-----------as of 7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964------------
there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Sources close to Mr Smith indicate however that he remains "quietly but defiantly" committed to the view that
---------------15 March 1964 came after 23 March 1964
---------------23 March 1964 came after 24 March 1964.

"Smith is one of our top guys," commented one LN source understood to be particularly close to Mr Smith. "If he says 2 + 2 = 2, then heck, that's good enough for me."

[Alan Ford]

Question for Mr Tim Nickerson!

On March 7, your explanation for the Crime Scene Search Section form went as follows:

"Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself."

Do you still stand over this explanation? If so, do you think Agent Howlett was also aware that he had not yet received the two curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day and so could not possibly be about to find them in the Paine garage?

Thanking you in advance for your resumed input, good sir! 

[John Iacoletti]

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.

Of course it?s alleged. The interrogations weren?t recorded.

  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

All of these verbal gymnastics to try to deflect and avoid discussing any possible legitimate reason that evidence could be submitted before it was found.