Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Alan Ford]

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

ALAN FORD SAID:

But a mistake for what date, Mr Von Pein? So far you have given us two different answers to this question, each of which has led you all the way into the realms of impossibility for the simple reason that the document contains not just dates but times also:

a) The Von Pein 23 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage

b) The Von Pein 24 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett

Are these two time-bending fantasies still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein? If so, and if you cannot bring yourself to consider any scenario involving deception on the part of those charged with investigating the assassination, then you're going to need to pivot fast to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes'....................

Do you wish to pivot to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes', Mr Von Pein? Or do you perhaps wish instead to pivot to the honest admission that this document has left you and your Warren Gullible pals (quite obviously) totally stumped?

 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Richard Smith]

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?

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?  I have no idea what the background story is for this document.  And neither do you or Alan.   All we can do is speculate.   And the explanation that the authorities brought Oswald's curtain rods to light of their own volition after suppressing those same curtain rods to frame him makes no sense for the reasons we have beaten to death.  How do they get folks who were not involved with conspiracy/frame up to go along with a cover up of these curtain rods as the ones from Paine's garage?  That doesn't add up.  In addition, the document has the same WC numbers that were assigned to the curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage.  That seems conclusive of which curtain rods are the subject of this document.  Why would your non-conspirators put the WC numbers of the Paine curtain rods on any curtain rods that they believe came from Oswald/TSBD?  Maybe Ruth Paine tells an WC investigator about the curtain rods.  They send someone out before her interview to test them for prints and put them back in place for her WC testimony.   When she says they have been there all along she means no one other than the investigators who are asking her about them have taken them from the garage.  She knows they already know the rods were removed to be tested for prints.  I can't prove it.  Pure speculation but so is everything else absent some additional information.  The default conclusion for any unexplained anomaly is not a vast conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald as suggested by Alan.  That is absurd.

If someone like Alan or yourself truly thought this document provided evidence that proves a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK instead of being the product of a hopeful defense attorney fantasy, then you would pursue that with the NY Times or perhaps contact Ruth Paine herself.  No such effort is ever taken, however.  Alan just posts it here over and over again.  What he expects to happen is unclear.   

[Martin Weidmann]

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?  I have no idea what the background story is for this document.  And neither do you or Alan.   All we can do is speculate.   And the explanation that the authorities brought Oswald's curtain rods to light of their own volition after suppressing those same curtain rods to frame him makes no sense for the reasons we have beaten to death.  How do they get folks who were not involved with conspiracy/frame up to go along with a cover up of these curtain rods as the ones from Paine's garage?  That doesn't add up.  In addition, the document has the same WC numbers that were assigned to the curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage.  That seems conclusive of which curtain rods are the subject of this document.  Why would your non-conspirators put the WC numbers of the Paine curtain rods on any curtain rods that they believe came from Oswald/TSBD?  Maybe Ruth Paine tells an WC investigator about the curtain rods.  They send someone out before her interview to test them for prints and put them back in place for her WC testimony.   When she says they have been there all along she means no one other than the investigators who are asking her about them have taken them from the garage.  She knows they already know the rods were removed to be tested for prints.  I can't prove it.  Pure speculation but so is everything else absent some additional information.  The default conclusion for any unexplained anomaly is not a vast conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald as suggested by Alan.  That is absurd.

If someone like Alan or yourself truly thought this document provided evidence that proves a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK instead of being the product of a hopeful defense attorney fantasy, then you would pursue that with the NY Times or perhaps contact Ruth Paine herself.  No such effort is ever taken, however.  Alan just posts it here over and over again.  What he expects to happen is unclear.

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?

Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.

I have no idea what the background story is for this document.  And neither do you or Alan.   All we can do is speculate.

Amazing, when it comes to photocopies of documents taken from a micro film you claim to know exactly what the background story is, and here you refuse to do the one thing you are good at; speculate!

Alan just posts it here over and over again.  What he expects to happen is unclear.

I don't know what Alan expects, but I for one would love to have a plausible explanation for the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of that document with different information on it.

[Richard Smith]

So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?

Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.

LOL.  So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle.  And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]".  Better known as framing him!  But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald.  Actions completely at odd with one another.  And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion?  HA HA HA.  Keep them coming.  You are twisting like a pretzel.  The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others.  And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.

[Alan Ford]

I have no idea what the background story is for this document.

Actually, Mr Smith, what you have no idea of is how to explain away what's on this document---------------the pitiful best you've been able to come up with is 'Oh gee, they musta got both the dates wrong, but hey no biggie, muh NY Times' 

[Alan Ford]

As mentioned by Martin...

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.

Worth noting is that on the copy Howlett's signature releasing the rods is missing.

Someone took the time to fake the date/time/signature of Day but forgot about Howlett.

Everything in read, probably done in one sitting by Day, from the original is perfectly copied along with Howlett's first signature.

 

[Alan Ford]

Day noted: white enamel (4 pcs)

When picked up:

Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

And HOW exactly did those curtain rods end up being 'marked' with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6?



Pure shenanigans!