Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Alan Ford]

Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting.  The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination.  And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods.  Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin.  Mission accomplished.  But wait.  Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!  And they do this to check for Oswald's prints!  And fill out a form to document this.  HA HA HA.  But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald.  So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage.  But they can't get the dates right to pull this off.  Makes a lot of sense - to Alan.  CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.

Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................



 

[Alan Ford]

If you begin with the dogmatic view (and it is dogmatic) that a conspiracy occurred and that Oswald was framed then you have to reverse engineer this evidence, these facts, these actions to fit into that conspiracy. So you have to have the CIA Sherlock Holmes joining up with the Dallas Police Department Keystone Cops. The conspirators are both brilliant and all powerful and resourceful and incompetent and illogical and neglectful. It has to be in order for your conspiracy to work, to make some sense.

You then have a type of conspiracy Rube Goldberg device or plan where a button is pushed and wheels turn and bells ring and balls roll down and fall and at the end of this long weird process JFK is dead and Oswald framed. But instead of bells and whistles and balls it's real human beings pulling this off. Now we know human beings don't operate like cogs or things; but the conspiracists think, indeed insist they do because this both all powerful and all incompetent "they" order them to do so. And these people, these cogs - unlike human beings in the real world - simply do what they are ordered to do. None objected to the plan, none refused to go along, none blew the whistle.

Superbly sophisticated stuff, Mr Galbraith! 

Now----------let's get back on topic, shall we?

What is Mr Steve M. Galbraith's explanation for what's on the document below?



 

[Martin Weidmann]

Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

[Alan Ford]

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin a another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

Excellent points, Mr Weidmann, thank you! 

Mr Von Pein has gone awfully quiet. Let's give him a friendly little prompt, shall we?

ALAN FORD SAID:

Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)

Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Richard Smith]

Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities  were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!" 

It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.

He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.

Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Amen to that!

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.  Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.  But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect.   And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.

[Martin Weidmann]

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.  Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.  But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect.   And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.

Stick to playing the contrarian.  That does not require any thought.

You think, mr. Smarty pants?

Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not?  Here you suggest he is not.

Why would Day be part of the conspiracy? That he clearly was incompetent is another matter. When he produced a evidence card with allegedly Oswald's palm print on it, which he allegedly kept in his office without telling anybody for a week, in a case that involved the assassination of a President, he clearly demonstrated his incompetence.

But what Alan is showing you is a straight forward DPD document, on which Day signed for the receipt. He also signed for the release and confirmed his conclusion that the only print he found did not belong to Oswald. The real question that needs to be asked - and you won't be able to answer - is why the WC used a carbon copy of the receipt document with different release date on it.

So, mr Smarty pants, can you explain this?

[David Von Pein]

Agent Howlett may well have done just that, at least eventually.

But first, the problem posed by whoever had found the rods in the Depository (two curtain rods, marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) needed to be addressed. This person, if they kicked up a fuss and went public with their description of the two curtain rods they had found, could destroy trust in the official claim that Mr Oswald had not brought curtain rods to work.

And so a scheme to----------------
a) generate paperwork that would satisfy this witness that the curtain rods had been thoroughly examined and shown not to have been handled by Mr Oswald
b) generate insurance against any potential future public claims by the pesky Depository employee by placing into the official record two curtain rods, marked (as Ruth Paine Exhibits) with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6
---------------was hatched.

~Grin~

Says the man with the following hilariously kooky explanation of the crime lab document:

Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)

Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?

The March 15 date at the top of the document is (quite obviously) merely a mistake.

The "mistake" theory is far more believable than your cloak-and-dagger alternative, that's for sure. Your scenario requires numerous liars, including civilian witness Ruth Hyde Paine. My "mistake" theory requires zero liars.