Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Walt Cakebread]

Priscilla Johnson McMillan spun quite a yarn in 1977 didn't she?  Marina and Ruth couldn't even agree on who it was who found the ring, or when.

Priscilla Johnson McMillan spun quite a yarn in 1977 didn't she?

Plausible tales are a hallmark of a good intel agent... Ms Johnson was CIA....

[Bill Chapman]

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

Stop trying to change the subject
Stop dodging. Are you saying Randle could see what Oswald was doing at the car or not?

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?
So you're claiming its not feasible, then. Thanks so much for your always-useful input.

A guilty Oswald? Lol
As opposed to a non-guilty Oswald.
(Think 'proof of concept')

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?
Really. In this case, it takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?
Really. Bottom line is that no one paid attention to the package.

In addition. the ‘empty street’ had houses and the houses had windows and people with eyeballs with which to peer out of those windows. Again, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

“Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long”
Certainly not anywhere nearly as long as having to deal (for the rest of her life) with the optics of being remembered by the genpop as the sister of the driver who drove Oswald to the killing field.

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop trying to change the subject
Stop dodging. Are you saying Randle could see what Oswald was doing at the car or not?

Don't know, don't care. And totally irrelevant, as we know from Buell Frazier where the package was.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?
So you're claiming its not feasible, then. Thanks so much for your always-useful input.

No, I am claiming that you don't know the weight of the package that Oswald carried

A guilty Oswald? Lol
As opposed to a non-guilty Oswald.
(Think 'proof of concept')

I'd rather think; actual evidence, and start with somebody being innocent until proven guilty, instead of being pressumed to be guilty from the outset based on vague assumptions that something is feasible.

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?
Most likely. In this case, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

Most likely? LOL...

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?
Really. Bottom line is that no one paid attention to the package.

Randle paid enough attention to see the package nearly reaching the ground and Buell Frazier paid enough attention to see the package on the back seat and to see Oswald put it in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

In addition. the ‘empty street’ had houses and the houses had windows and people with eyeballs with which to peer out of those windows. Again, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

It doesn't make sense that Oswald, as you claim, was on his guard for witnesses in an empty street of Irving at around 7 o'clock in the morning, but wasn't when he got to Dallas, at around 8, when there were far more people around.

“Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long”
Certainly not anywhere nearly as long as having to deal (for the rest of her life) with the optics of being remembered by the genpop as the sister of the driver who drove Oswald to the killing field.

BS

[Richard Smith]

That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.

There is no cover up at all, unless you assume that the bag found at the TSBD is the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning. Unfortunately for you, there isn't a shred of evidence that this was indeed the case, so all the BS of making a bag from TSBD materials to "cover up" his white lie to Frazier is nothing more than a baseless theory.

If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.

More selfserving BS based on nothing else but assumptions. If Oswald lied to Frazier and the bag did not contain curtain rods it could have contained something else that Oswald did not want to share with Frazier simply because that would result in him having to admit he previously lied.

We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing.

More conjecture based on assumptions. If you make enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like. Just because you assume that the MC rifle was indeed stored in Ruth Paine's garage and just because you assume that the MC rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald doesn't mean that the conclusion you draw from that is anything else but an assumption also.

So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.  We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.  Oswald's universe was finite and limited to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle. Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.  Where is it found?  At Oswald's place of employment.  This is not difficult.  There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.  Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

[Andrew Mason]

Friends, this document gives us excellent grounds for believing that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository at some point after the assassination----------



Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.

It is well known that the curtain rods were found on November 22, 1963. They were found between some boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD in the NW area near the stairs. They were Italian made and were fully assembled into a single unit. They had been designed to provide curtains for Allies in WWII and Oswald used them for a similar purpose.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.  We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.  Oswald's universe was finite and limited to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle. Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.  Where is it found?  At Oswald's place of employment.  This is not difficult.  There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.  Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

There are no "assumptions" here.

Oh yes there are. You just call them "evidence"

This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.

No it isn't. There is no testimony whatsoever that connects the bag found at the TSBD to the bag Oswald carried that morning.

Btw, what exactly is "based upon the testimony" and "physical evidence" if not mere assumptions?

Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.

That's an assumption

We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.

Translation of "reach a reasonable conclusion" = a speculative assumption based on bias

The object therein must come from the Paine household.

Why? Another assumption

What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.

Multiple assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever;

Assumption 1: There was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
Assumption 2: That the rifle was a Mannlicher–Carcano
Assumption 3: Oswald took that rifle

What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle.

Another assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever to determine where the MC rifle found at the TSBD came from.

Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.

Says who?

There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.

BS

Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

Then prove me wrong by providing some actual evidence rather than all sorts of wild speculations based on nothing but your own bias.

[John Iacoletti]

So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.

Who are you trying to kid?  It nothing but one giant assumption.

  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.

You don't know what he carried to work.

He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle.

Sorry, "Richard".  You don't know a rifle was at the Paine residence the night before.  Or ever.

Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.

LOL.

There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.

Nope.  It's another "Richard Smith" speculation and nothing more.

Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

And calling your made-up nonsense "facts" and "evidence" over and over again is really weak sauce.

[Bill Chapman]

It is well known that the curtain rods were found on November 22, 1963. They were found between some boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD in the NW area near the stairs. They were Italian made and were fully assembled into a single unit. They had been designed to provide curtains for Allies in WWII and Oswald used them for a similar purpose.

hahahaha
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work