Then went inside with the curtain rods

[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.

[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