Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Colin Crow]

The first mention of a bag/package arises between Adamcik and LMR. Apparently she knows about the curtain rods but fails to mention them. For some reason she was suspicious. The curtain rods are first mentioned by Frazier that evening when asked about Oswald carrying a package.

[Dan O'meara]

You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.

Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.

The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.

No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.

Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.
The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.
The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

[Martin Weidmann]

"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."


I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.

That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?

"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."

Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.

How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?

The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.

And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.

The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?

One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.

You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.

[Dan O'meara]

This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.

The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.

There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.

To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

[Dan O'meara]

That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?

Martin, I'm proposing a scenario to account for various aspects of the curtain rod story.
I'm speculating. Just trying to come up with a scenario that accounts for the things we do know about this aspect of the case.
I'm pretty sure I've made that clear.
Your use of the word "selfserving" seems really defensive.
I'm just playing with possibilities.

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.

How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?

Again, really defensive.
Why do you have to turn it into me trying to read Oswald's mind?
Oswald didn't need curtain rods because he had a perfectly fine set of curtain rods already in his room.
He didn't ever mention to his Earlene Roberts he ever had a problem with them or wanted to change them.
He didn't mention to Ruth Paine he wanted to use the ones in the garage.
I doubt he'd just walk off with property that wasn't his.
It's not a mystery and doesn't require mind-reading or anything like that.

And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.

Oswald was carrying round curtain rods with him? Unbeknownst to Marina?
I get the impression Oswald was a "stripped down" kind of guy who travelled light. I find it unlikely he is carting round his own, personal curtain rods with him. It seems like a "luxury" possession.
I don't think I'll be taking that suggestion too seriously.
But you're right - there does have to be an explanation for the DPD document.

One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.

If Marina saw a rifle in the specially prepared blanket and it was missing at the time of the assassination I'm going to play the odds.
I'm not saying for a fact that's what happened.
I'm speculating about a scenario that explains things like Marina's statement about a rifle being in the blanket, tied together to make a covering that would nicely contain a rifle which was the missing on the day of the assassination.
Your proposal of multiple rifles doesn't wash. Like your suggestion of Oswald's "travel rods".
I'm trying to simplify things.

You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.

What factual statements am I making?
As I've said numerous times - I'm proposing a scenario. That's all. It's nothing personal. Nothing "self-serving".

[Martin Weidmann]

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".

Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.

If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.

The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.

There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.

Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.

In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?

It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.

What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.

[Dan O'meara]

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".

Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.

I totally agree. Just because somebody doesn't understand something, that doesn't make that thing suspicious.
But that's not what's going on.
I understand that the part of the document that is in the official record has been radically, and deliberately altered.
That's what makes it suspicious.
That's not very difficult to understand. Is it?

If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.

The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.

There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.

Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.

"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."

That's the important part. That's what casts a shadow over the whole document. Your "logic" has to include this fact.
Your confidence in this document is misplaced (IMO)

In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?

It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.

It's not my claim though. Is it.
Ruth Paine, the woman who wrapped the curtain rods and put them on the shelf states there were only two.
You ignore this piece of key evidence. I do not.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this testimony casts even more doubt over the dubious DPD document.

What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.

"..nor do I like to speculate."

"Oswald's travel rods" don't come under the banner 'speculation'?
Really?
We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree over a few things.
There is no reason I can see for Oswald to take curtain rods with him that day. I can't make any kind of reasonable case to support the assumption he takes them.
He doesn't need them.
He never mentions them to Roberts.
He never mentions them to Paine.
But he does to Frazier.