Et tu, Bonnie?

[Colin Crow]

I get the impression the two pieces are meant to reinforce the bag at that point.
It isn't coincidental that they are placed where the long length of tape ends. The long length of tape (and the two pieces) reinforce 30.5" of seam.
The end of the long length near the "closed" end of the bag is reinforced by the triangular(ish) fold of paper and the strips of tape that hold it in place.
What is odd is that the seam to the left of the two pieces is not taped. About 6.5 inches of the seam is not taped. The only way the bag would be useful would be if it was folded at the strong fold where the two pieces are when carrying whatever object it was designed to carry.
The distance from this strong fold to the closed-end fold (yellow line in the graphic I posted) is 27".
The bag appears to be specifically constructed to carry an object (or objects) less than 27" in length.

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind offolded under."

[Dan O'meara]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.

This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,

[Colin Crow]

I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.

This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,

Agreed

[Dan O'meara]

Agreed

I don't think it was curtain rods either.

So what was Oswald carrying?
Maybe it was the bag that was important?

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't think it was curtain rods either.

So what was Oswald carrying?
Maybe it was the bag that was important?

I don't think it was curtain rods either.

We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.

Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.

[Richard Smith]

I don't think it was curtain rods either.

We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.

Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.

HA HA HA.  Wow.  Always nice to get a good laugh.  And in this bizarre fantasy Oswald lies to the police when it would be in his own self-interest to tell the truth to avoid being implicated in the assassination of the President?  Wow.   I'm starting to miss Caprio.  One of the dumbest explanations in the history of this forum.  Which is a high bar.

[Dan O'meara]

I don't think it was curtain rods either.

We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.

Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.

I agree that Oswald wouldn't tell Frazier he was trying to make up with his wife and, certainly judging from Marina's testimony, this appears to be the reason for him to be there.
However, why does he need to do it on the Thursday, why not wait until Friday and spend the weekend with her. Maybe he wanted to leave money with her as he did before the Walker incident.

The same is true about curtain rods - there is no clear reason for him to break his usual routine to collect curtain rods. But it appears Oswald does collect something as he shows up with a long package Friday morning.
If the above analysis of the bag is correct then he cannot be carrying a rifle. To be honest, I think it's too small to carry curtain rods (and I don't see the point of going to the trouble of constructing the bag in order to transport a couple of curtain rods).

As you say, we can never really know what is actually in the bag but I can't even come up with a reasonable guess as to what it might be.
From Marina's testimony and the 'blanket gun-case' in the garage, I feel fairly confident Oswald had a rifle, that he was storing it in the garage and that it was no longer in the garage after the assassination.
I am a lot less confident Oswald carried the rifle (or curtain rods) to work that morning.