Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Bill Chapman]

And you know this how?  Chapman Fabrications anyone?

The guy looks like a nap waiting to happen.

[Dan O'meara]

Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):

1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.

Why would Oswald deny this? If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.

2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?

What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.

3) Why did Oswald leave the curtain rods at work when he left?

If Oswald is just an innocent guy in no rush to get away, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him when he left on Friday? He's made a trip especially to collect them on Thursday then simply walked off without them on Friday. This is easily explained if there were never any curtain rods in the first place.

4) Ruth Paine testifies on more than one occasion that there were just two curtain rods (which she had wrapped and placed on the shelf herself). She testified that this was the case at the WC hearings and the 1986 assassination "docu-trial":

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in
the garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."

5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

6) There is, of course, Marina Oswald's extensive testimony outlining Oswald's ownership and use of a rifle. Of interest is the discovery of the rifle in the Paine garage:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Marina confirms it was the same blanket discovered during the initial search of the garage on the day of the assassination:

Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.

The blanket was folded, rolled and tied with twine to form a container for the rifle. When discovered, Guy Rose stated he could still see the outline of the rifle .
So the curtain rods were still in the garage but the rifle was gone.

7) When asked why she thought Oswald showed up on the Thursday, Marina stated it was because he wanted to "make his peace" with her. As with the curtain rod excuse given to Frazier, this could have waited until Friday. Marina reveals that Oswald wanted to reunite with Marina and the children as soon as possible:

"On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that
he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas."

He would rent a apartment "tomorrow" if she wanted it. He could hardly bring his family back to the cubby-hole he was living in and it seems he wanted to find somewhere for the family to live together "tomorrow". Hardly a man in need of sprucing up his existing room with some curtain rods.

No need for curtain rods



This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:



He mentioned nothing about needing them to Ruth Paine, who he supposedly just took them from, Mrs Roberts, the housekeeper where he lived or the Johnsons, the owners of the house:

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.


The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.

On one side is a large conspiracy involving Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Counsel Jenner, Agent Howlett and probably some of the officers who first searched the garage.
On the other side is a scared 19 year old boy who trusted his "friend".
I know which I find more likely.

[Martin Weidmann]

Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):

1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.

Why would Oswald deny this? If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.

2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?

What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.

3) Why did Oswald leave the curtain rods at work when he left?

If Oswald is just an innocent guy in no rush to get away, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him when he left on Friday? He's made a trip especially to collect them on Thursday then simply walked off without them on Friday. This is easily explained if there were never any curtain rods in the first place.

4) Ruth Paine testifies on more than one occasion that there were just two curtain rods (which she had wrapped and placed on the shelf herself). She testified that this was the case at the WC hearings and the 1986 assassination "docu-trial":

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in
the garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."

5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

6) There is, of course, Marina Oswald's extensive testimony outlining Oswald's ownership and use of a rifle. Of interest is the discovery of the rifle in the Paine garage:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Marina confirms it was the same blanket discovered during the initial search of the garage on the day of the assassination:

Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.

The blanket was folded, rolled and tied with twine to form a container for the rifle. When discovered, Guy Rose stated he could still see the outline of the rifle .
So the curtain rods were still in the garage but the rifle was gone.

7) When asked why she thought Oswald showed up on the Thursday, Marina stated it was because he wanted to "make his peace" with her. As with the curtain rod excuse given to Frazier, this could have waited until Friday. Marina reveals that Oswald wanted to reunite with Marina and the children as soon as possible:

"On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that
he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas."

He would rent a apartment "tomorrow" if she wanted it. He could hardly bring his family back to the cubby-hole he was living in and it seems he wanted to find somewhere for the family to live together "tomorrow". Hardly a man in need of sprucing up his existing room with some curtain rods.

No need for curtain rods



This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:



He mentioned nothing about needing them to Ruth Paine, who he supposedly just took them from, Mrs Roberts, the housekeeper where he lived or the Johnsons, the owners of the house:

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.


The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.

On one side is a large conspiracy involving Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Counsel Jenner, Agent Howlett and probably some of the officers who first searched the garage.
On the other side is a scared 19 year old boy who trusted his "friend".
I know which I find more likely.

Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work

You could have left the word "evidence" out as it is all only arguments, like "why would he have done that" questions that are not proof of anything.

The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.

Wrong. Frazier and Randle never claimed that Oswald had curtain rods with him. Frazier only said that Oswald had told him that and Randle only knew about it because Frazier told her.

Two more comments about the curtain rods. First of all, the fact that Ruth Paine had two sets in her garage doesn't preclude that Oswald - without Paine knowing - had a set in his belongings as well, and secondly, prior to the photos that you posted being taken, the landlady was photographed putting up curtain rods in Oswald's room. You conveniently ignored that!

I know which I find more likely.

Nobody really cares what you find likely. It's what you can prove and even if Oswald did not bring curtain rods that morning, that still does not automatically mean that he brought a rifle. And even less so a MC rifle that you can not prove was ever in Ruth Paine's garage in the first place and was still there on 11/21/63.

[Dan O'meara]

He can't explain the DPD identification bureau document, showing SSA Howlett presenting curtain rods for fingerprinting on 03/15/64 and collecting them on the 24th (1 day after 2 sets were recovered in Ruth Paine's garage), which clearly implies a third set, so he dismisses it as "suspicious"

 
You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:

"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."

Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.

He can't explain, during his polygraph, Frazier dismissing the TSBD bag as not the one he saw Oswald carry, so he simply calls the polygraph fake.

"Frazier said that it was possible that this was the case,"

That's from the report about Frazier's polygraph. You choose to ignore this.
This is what I actually had to say about my impressions of the polygraph:

"To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?"

Does it seem real to you Martin?
If it does, what is it that convinces you it's real?

If you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic Martin!

[Martin Weidmann]

You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:

"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."

Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.

I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.

The only thing I can not explain is why Ltd Day would take it upon himself to use a copy of the original document to falsely provide a collection date of 03/26/64.

But it is rather telling that you accuse the Secret Service and the DPD of falsifying a document, without even being able to explain why they would do that!

"Frazier said that it was possible that this was the case,"

That's from the report about Frazier's polygraph. You choose to ignore this.
This is what I actually had to say about my impressions of the polygraph:

"To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?"

Does it seem real to you Martin?
If it does, what is it that convinces you it's real?

What you fail to understand is that the FD 302 reports what Lewis, the polygraph operator, told the FBI agent. It's not a verbatim account of the polygraph. So, here is what most likely happened'

Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".

Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does, so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it. That explanation is what Lewis told Drain.

As Frazier told me himself that he was in fact polygraphed I have no reason to assume that he wasn't.

The problem seems to be that the actual polygraph print out is not part of the JFK collection at the National Archives and nobody knows where it is. But if that means to you that it didn't happen and isn't real, then you must also consider the documents "proving" that Oswald order a rifle at Klein's are not real either, since the microfilm where they came from is also not in the collection and thus missing.
 

If you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic Martin!

The only difference between you and me is that I don't make assumptions and you do nothing else but speculate.

[Dan O'meara]

I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.

The only thing I can not explain is why Ltd Day would take it upon himself to use a copy of the original document to falsely provide a collection date of 03/26/64.

But it is rather telling that you accuse the Secret Service and the DPD of falsifying a document!

What you fail to understand is that the FD 302 reports what Lewis, the polygraph operator, told the FBI agent. It's not a verbatim account of the polygraph. So, here is what most likely happened'

Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".

Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does, so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it. That explanation is what Lewis told Drain.

As Frazier told me himself that he was in fact polygraphed I have no reason to assume that he wasn't.

The problem seems to be that the actual polygraph print out is not part of the JFK collection at the National Archives and nobody knows where it is. But if that means to you that it didn't happen and isn't real, then you must also consider the documents "proving" that Oswald order a rifle at Klein's are not real either, since the microfilm where they came from is also not in the collection and thus missing.
 
The only difference between you and me is that I don't make assumptions and you do nothing else but speculate.

"...I don't make assumptions..."

Assumption #1 - "Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".

Assumption #2 - "Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does..."

Assumption #3 - "... so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it."

Let's not forget "Oswald's travel rods" from the man who never speculates.


Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.
The point I was making concerns the "conversational" tone of the reported polygraph. Taking the report at face value it doesn't seem like a real polygraph test as I understand one. Anyone can partake in the assumptionfest that is your last post but, unlike you, I try and interpret things as I find them.

One thing you're right about - as far as the curtain rod story is concerned I'm just speculating. Presenting a possible scenario that accounts for as many of the points raised concerning this aspect of the assassination as possible.

[John Iacoletti]

Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):

Invoking DVP is an automatic disqualification.

1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.

Why would Oswald deny this?

 If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.

Who knows why -- or even if -- he denied this?  And even if he did carry curtain rods in Frazier's car, it doesn't just follow that they would be found in the TSBD, or reported to have been found.  Who looked?

2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?

What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.

This argument-by-why-not can only carry you so far.  It's rhetoric. It can lead you wherever you want to go.  The fact remains that we don't know what was in Oswald's package.

5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:

Yet somehow the "just two curtain rods" were submitted into evidence via a CSS form 8 days before they were "taken from the Paine garage".

This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:

And this picture shows Mrs. Johnson putting up new curtain rods after the assassination.