Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

"...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.

Oh boy, I was just trying to explain to you how it would have worked, but even that, it seems, was way over your head.

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.

Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.

I know, you just called it "not a real 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.

The "conversational" tone was what Drain wrote in his report after talking to Lewis. It was not a report of the actual polygraph test.

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.

Give me a break. All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative.

[Alan Ford]

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"

Just to be clear-------we have a) two curtain rods (each containing two pieces) submitted for testing 3/15 + b) two curtain rods (each containing two pieces) extracted from the Paine garage 3/23. There is no 'third set'.

[Alan Ford]

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):

And so the mask slips further

[Dan O'meara]

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?

The point I'm making is that he would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods to work. Not only is it a perfectly innocent thing to do
It's just a fact that no curtain rods were ever reported to have been found in the TSBD. This doesn't prove anything, it merely supports the notion they were never there. Taken by itself it doesn't mean much but it's part of a larger narrative composed of lots of these small things that, in isolation, don't mean much and can be interpreted in many different ways. If curtain rods had been found at some point it would be of some significance but, again it wouldn't mean much in and of itself.

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.

Agreed. It's just another of those small pieces. Significance is put on Oswald breaking his routine the night before the assassination because he had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage and it was established a rifle was used in the assassination. Breaking his routine to collect curtain rods seems like a  excuse when he could have got them Friday night. Through various testimonies it was established the curtain rods were still there but the rifle was missing. This is of great significance to those who believe Oswald was involved in the assassination.
Taken in isolation this piece of the puzzle "can lead you wherever you want to go", but as these pieces are put together they have to form a coherent narrative.

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".

Is that a fact?

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

Turning to Mr Von Pein:

"Mrs. Johnson stated that when the Dallas, Texas, Police searched this room following Oswald's arrest, they bent the rod which held the drapes and curtains. Consequently, she stated, she had the old rod taken down and replaced it with a traverse rod and aqua-colored acetate drapes. A traverse rod and acetate drapes replaced the lace curtain which was on the end wall window." [page 3 of CD705]
 

[Dan O'meara]

And so the mask slips further

 

And what mask might that be Alan?

[Dan O'meara]

Oh boy, I was just trying to explain to you how it would have worked, but even that, it seems, was way over your head.

Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.

I know, you just called it "not a real 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.

The "conversational" tone was what Drain wrote in his report after talking to Lewis. It was not a report of the actual polygraph test.

Give me a break. All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative.

"All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative."

The arguments I'm presnting lead there own way. Just because it's what the WC concluded is of no relevance.

[Alan Ford]

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.

Again with Mr O'Meara's shameless McAdams-style sleight of hand: Let's spin the fact that there were shenanigans with the release date as meaning the document is somehow LESS damning for the official story