Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Jerry Freeman]

Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just  unintelligible.

Should read----Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible anal.

[Colin Crow]

The "scar" doesn't point down towards Houston. If the Carcano rifle caused the "scar" (while pointed down Elm), it might be from the forward corner of the trigger-guard housing resting on top of the box and somehow gouging the cardboard, possibly from steadying the rifle or the recoil. Later on, Day knew a direct backward recoil wouldn't account for the "scar". But the Carcano doesn't have much of a recoil and the rifle could have been moved a bit sideways when lifted.

The only strips I'm aware are along the interior side of the base of the frame. That would be the "back" of the frame, the side visible to photographers standing inside.

Would appreciate evidence that indicates the direction of the "scar". So, far all I can find is Day's quote that he considered it later to be in the wrong direction. Ie a shot inconsistent with a shot down Elm.

Please not the top of the strip indicated by the yellow line. Apologies for the bad drawing skills.



The base of the frame is clearly different in the left and right windows.

[Richard Smith]

@A. Ford....

Why are you so fascinated with that curtain rod document?

Regardless of the dates mentioned, it's a document that is obviously referring to the curtain rods that were unwrapped (on the WC record) in Ruth Paine's garage on the evening of March 23, 1964 [see 9 H 424].

The document even mentions the exact Warren Commission exhibit numbers assigned to the 2 Paine rods (Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 & 276).

What is it you're trying to prove by bringing up that document anyway, Mr. Ford? You're not trying to imply that Ruth Paine's on-the-record 3/23/64 testimony from her garage is somehow phony, are you? Where are you attempting to go with it?

To complicate the document's dates even more, did you, Alan Ford, see my earlier post in this thread talking about the additional version of the document you have been fixated on? It seems the "March 24" date on the document is also dated "March 26" in the alternate version (seen at my post below):

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.msg122181.html#msg122181

Alan apparently believes that someone in the TSBD found the curtain rods Oswald told Frazier that he carried that morning.  And this document somehow proves it.  In addition to being completely baseless, this fantasy narrative is full of outrageous logical inconsistencies.  Why, for example, would the authorities who successfully suppressed these curtain rods as part of the official narrative that Oswald carried his rifle instead of any such curtain rods in his bag suddenly, months later, bring them to light on their own motion?  And conveniently document the evidence that they were suppressing in a form! To test them for Oswald's prints.  The same guy who they are framing by claiming he never had any curtain rods in the first place.  HA HA HA.  The last guy they would want to connect to any curtain rods.  Then it gets even better.  According to Alan, the "275" and "276" numbers on the form that match the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the curtain rods found in the Paine's garage are actually measurements of the lengths of these curtain rods.  You can't make that up.  A simple error in the date or some investigative process behind the scenes lends intends itself to this incredible, implausible fantasy.

[Jerry Organ]

Would appreciate evidence that indicates the direction of the "scar". So, far all I can find is Day's quote that he considered it later to be in the wrong direction. Ie a shot inconsistent with a shot down Elm.

There would be no reason for Day to associate the scar direction with a shot fired down Houston, so no reason for him to think the gunman was standing by the right-side window.

I think Day may have briefly looked at the scar without regard to the streets (they had just finished taking a few photographs, were setting up their kits and were called away to the rifle location). Maybe when Day returned that afternoon, he reconsidered the scar being caused by a recoil.

Please not the top of the strip indicated by the yellow line. Apologies for the bad drawing skills.



The base of the frame is clearly different in the left and right windows.

Whatever is present on the left-side is present on the right.

[David Von Pein]

Alan [Ford] apparently believes that someone in the TSBD found the curtain rods Oswald told Frazier that he carried that morning. And this document somehow proves it. .... Then it gets even better. According to Alan, the "275" and "276" numbers...are actually measurements of the lengths of these curtain rods. .... A simple error in the date or some investigative process behind the scenes lends itself to this incredible, implausible fantasy.

Thanks for the info, Richard.

If you're right and a CTer named Alan Ford believes all the fantastic things you just suggested, then Mr. Ford must be totally ignoring the word "marked" in CE1952. (We're supposed to believe "marked" indicates a unit of measurement, instead of marked as an exhibit by the Commission? That's a stretch.)

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm

(That linked version of Exhibit 1952 is the other version of that document that I mentioned previously, which is the one that appears in WC Volume 23 and is dated March 26 at the bottom. And J.C. Day's signature is different from the March 24 version too, so Day must have signed two different variants of this same document.)

Plus, if any CTers believe the things Richard Smith posted above, it also would mean that those CTers believe Ruth Paine's unwrapping-the-curtain-rods-right-on-the-spot-in-her-own-garage-in-front-of-Warren-Commission-counsel testimony is a complete fraud and was manufactured by the WC and/or Ruth Paine from whole cloth.

Such a belief about Mrs. Paine is silly beyond tolerance.

But I've become accustomed to reading the many vile things that a lot of conspiracists have uttered about Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine. And I'm always ready to defend her whenever I see such claptrap, such as these examples from 2013: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

[Alan Ford]

Thanks for the info, Richard.

If you're right and a CTer named Alan Ford believes all the fantastic things you just suggested, then

Yikes, it seems Mr Von Pein really does wish to stand by his Soopah-Doopah-Time-Travel-Explanation-----------------

The 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)

 

[John Iacoletti]

Plus, if any CTers believe the things Richard Smith posted above, it also would mean that those CTers believe Ruth Paine's unwrapping-the-curtain-rods-right-on-the-spot-in-her-own-garage-in-front-of-Warren-Commission-counsel testimony is a complete fraud and was manufactured by the WC and/or Ruth Paine from whole cloth.

Such a belief about Mrs. Paine is silly beyond tolerance.

What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here".  Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15.  And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?

[David Von Pein]

What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here".  Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15.  And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?

But by the same token, CTers love to paint each and every "inconsistency" with their conspiracy brush. No matter what it is. And, when combining the witness statements and the various official documents connected to the case, there were, indeed, a number of inconsistencies.

The "2-15-63" date written on the Klein's deposit ticket would be yet another one. But that was a KLEIN'S error, while the "inconsistency" relating to the CSSS document is an error made by the DALLAS POLICE. So when we discuss just those two items, how can anyone try to say those two "inconsistencies" are related in any way? Reasonably speaking, they can't.

I am kind of curious, though, as to why two different versions of that Crime Scene Search Section document exist.