Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Lance Payette]

Yes, the curtain rod issue, like every other JFKA issue, has been beaten to death and beyond. I simply want to approach it from the standpoint of epistemology, the plausibility of my analysis versus the plausibility of a CT-oriented analysis.

When the “two wallets” thread evolved into a “brown paper package” thread, CTers suggested that I failed to give sufficient weight to Frazier and Randle, “the only two people who actually saw the package.”

I don’t, of course, give no weight. I don’t insist Frazier and Randle were lying. I recognize their testimony as problematical for the LN narrative; Randle in particular was impressive. If they had said Oswald was carrying nothing but a small sandwich bag, I would recognize this as a huge problem for the LN narrative.

As it is, they established a package of 24"-28.5” that must have been quite stiff since Randle said Oswald held it in his right hand with the other end toward the ground and Frazier said he carried it toward the TSBD tight against his side with one end under his armpit. All things considered, I see the most plausible explanation being that the package contained the disassembled Carcano and that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length by 7"-10”.

I once again focus on what I call epistemology, meaning trying to think through how much sense any other explanation would make. For an explanation to be epistemologically justified, it doesn’t have to be true; it merely has to be rational.

“I don’t need an explanation” is not a justification; it’s an avoidance. “All I need to do is create doubt about your explanation” is not a justification either; even in a criminal trial, the doubt must be reasonable. I will accept that there is doubt about my explanation; I'm interested in whether you have one that is more plausible.

These are the facts known to me as I attempt to work toward an alternative explanation:

• Frazier said Oswald had told him he needed a ride to the Paine home on Thursday to get curtain rods.
• Randle said Frazier told her on Thursday that Oswald had ridden home with him to get curtain rods.
• Frazier said Oswald reminded him on Friday morning that the package in the back seat contained curtain rods.
• Frazier said Oswald also said he had brought no lunch and was going to buy lunch that day.
• Marina said Oswald never mentioned curtain rods during his visit.
• Ruth said Oswald never mentioned curtain rods during his visit.
• I once researched what simple curtain rods cost in 1963; it was $1 or less (they are still only about $4 at Walmart).
• During interrogation, Oswald denied to at least Fritz and Holmes having said anything about curtain rods or bringing anything other than a sack lunch. When pressed by Holmes, he said his lunch might have been in a long grocery bag.
• After his arrest, Oswald said nothing to Marina, Robert or the press about curtain rods.

What are we to make of all this?

• Were Frazier and Randle lying? Why would they have invented the curtain rod story? Why would they have invented a package too short to hold the Carcano? Why would they have stubbornly clung to the curtain rod story and too-short length when other Warren Commission witnesses were supposedly intimidated into toeing the party line? Why did the WC allow them to testify about the length of the package at all?
• If Oswald had simply been going to the Paine home to attempt to reconcile with Marina, why did he need the curtain rod story? Why did he need any explanation other than “I want to see my wife and kids”? What answer can there be, other than “because he knew he was going to have a long, stiff package the next morning”?
• Since Ruth and Marina were both surprised by Oswald’s visit, why would he not have mentioned that the purpose was curtain rods? Why would he not have continued to lay the groundwork for an alibi as he had done with Frazier? Considering all that Ruth had done for him and Marina, and the reality that current rods cost almost nothing, why would he not have asked Ruth if he could borrow or buy a couple of current rods from her?
• Why would Oswald have denied the current rod story during interrogation? He had already laid the groundwork for this alibi. What explanation can there be, other than “he knew there were no curtain rods”? If he in fact didn’t deny this, why would Fritz and Holmes have invented this denial? Why would they have invented a claim that he had brought his lunch? Does not all of this make the LN case more complicated than it needs to be?
• If Oswald actually didn’t deny the curtain rod story, why did he not say “Look in the TSBD, the curtain rods are up on the sixth floor” or “Look in my room on Beckley, I set the curtain rods in the corner after Whaley dropped me off”? Why did he say nothing to Marina, Robert or the press?
• What, other than the disassembled Carcano, was in the long, stiff package that Randle and Frazier saw and that Oswald carried tight against his side into the TSBD? Is it even vaguely plausible that this package contained a sandwich and an apple?

Plausible answers to these questions lead me to the explanation that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken. I cannot answer them in a CT-oriented way that does not seem fantastically implausible.

Most CT-oriented explanations these days seem to focus on Oswald being a dupe, the rifle having been placed in the TSBD sometime before the JFKA, and Oswald carrying a mysterious something else in a long, stiff package on that day. (I believe Pat Speer inclines toward the explanation that the package actually contained curtain rods.)

Greg Doudna, who seems obsessed with this issue, has offered at least two complex scenarios that strike me as laugh-out-loud implausible. The least complex was something about Oswald having the rifle sighted in by Dial Ryder on November 11; thereafter selling it to some third party who was, alas, up to no good; agreeing to leave it in a storage locker in a brown paper bag created from TSBD wrapping paper (thus explaining Oswald’s prints on the bag); giving the locker key to the purchaser; the purchaser sneaking the rifle into the TSBD (in the bag) shortly before the JFKA; and Oswald carrying a long, stiff package unrelated to either curtain rods or the Carcano on the morning of the JFKA.

Does something like this strike you as more plausible and as a better answer to all of the above questions than “Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length of the package by 7-10”? Is it not completely ad hoc and obviously driven by an agenda to make Oswald an innocent patsy?

Well, anyway, take your best shot at an explanation that seems more plausible to you than “Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken.“

[Zeon Mason]

Well that’s an interesting idea of Oswald’s rifle being sold to the conspirator shooter on Nov/11/63.

The problem with it is that the rifle  was found with the scope Out of alignment and requiring shims under the mount to readjust the angle of the mount.

One would think the conspirator having bought the rifle on Nov 11th would have made sure the scope was aligned properly so that he could use the scope to aim more accurately.

And of course if the purpose was to use Oswald’s rifle and leave it at the scene,to frame Oswald, then  an out of alignment and defective scope with tendency to drift off zero after just one shot, would be introducing unnecessary doubt.

There are 2 options as I see it:
A. Oswald was the shooter and he purposely made sure the scope was out of alignment and he practiced using the iron sights. His idea was that the out of alignment defective scope would aid his “I’m a patsy being set up” if he were to ever get arrested.
B. Conspirator shooter never bothered to check out the scope, because the MC rifle was simply a pre planted gimmick left behind to cause maximum angst for the authorities whom the conspirator probably knew would be under pressure to avoid any conspiracy investigation.  The conspirator wished to problems for the authority while also causing the general public to be suspicious of the authority.
An ex CIA BOP survivor whom had a vendetta against Oswald for having been working with Guy Bannister as an informant? Also maybe the conspirator(s) wanted the general public to experience some pain as retribution for supporting JFK even as they knew that JFK had betrayed the conspirators BOP comrades.

[Tom Graves]

Why would Frazier and Randle have invented the curtain rod story?

Because Frazier was a conspirator (or at least felt culpable for not informing someone in authority at the TSBD that Oswald had taken a suspiciously long package into the building just a few hours before JFK was scheduled to pass by), and his sister was covering for him?

Why would they have invented a package too short to hold the Carcano?

Didn't Randle originally say that the bag was about three-feet (36 inches) long?

Regardless, the bag was actually long enough to effectively hide the disassembled Carcano, IIRC.

Why would they have stubbornly clung to the curtain rod story and too-short length when other Warren Commission witnesses were supposedly intimidated into toeing the party line?

Because to admit that the bag looked as long as it turned out to be would raise the question, "Why in tarnation didn't you warn somebody, Buell???"

[Lance Payette]

Because Frazier was a conspirator (or at least felt culpable for not informing someone in authority at the TSBD that Oswald had taken a suspiciously long package into the building just a few hours before JFK was scheduled to pass by), and his sister was covering for him?

That's not too bad! Would a 36" bag look inherently more suspicious than a 24" or 28.5" bag - and suspicious enough to make two unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle stick with this elaborate lie even at the WC? In any event, if what Frazier and Randle saw actually was longer, that would simply support the conclusion that Oswald was carrying the rifle.

I do find Frazier's and Randle's persistence with their story both impressive and puzzling. Either they were simply rock-solid honest and could not be budged or "something else" was going on. Your theory is at least a candidate for the "something else."

Didn't Randle originally say that the bag was about three-feet (36 inches) long?

No. When she was originally questioned (by the FBI, as I recall), the demonstration came up with 27". At the WC, the demonstration came up with 28.5". I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did. [OOPS, MY BAD - TOM IS CORRECT]

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That's not too bad! Would a 36" bag look inherently more suspicious than a 24" or 28.5" bag - and suspicious enough to make two unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle stick with this elaborate lie even at the WC? In any event, if what Frazier and Randle saw actually was longer, that would simply support the conclusion that Oswald was carrying the rifle.

I do find Frazier's and Randle's persistence with their story both impressive and puzzling. Either they were simply rock-solid honest and could not be budged or "something else" was going on. Your theory is at least a candidate for the "something else."

No. When she was originally questioned (by the FBI, as I recall), the demonstration came up with 27". At the WC, the demonstration came up with 28.5". I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did.

In a 11/23/63 FBI report they say she believed it was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

and complete report is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=325

Interesting that in the latter fuller account she says Buell Frazier told her that Oswald told Frazier that Ruth Paine was giving him the curtain rods because he was "fixing up his apartment."
 

[Lance Payette]

Well that’s an interesting idea of Oswald’s rifle being sold to the conspirator shooter on Nov/11/63.

The problem with it is that the rifle  was found with the scope Out of alignment and requiring shims under the mount to readjust the angle of the mount.

One would think the conspirator having bought the rifle on Nov 11th would have made sure the scope was aligned properly so that he could use the scope to aim more accurately.

And of course if the purpose was to use Oswald’s rifle and leave it at the scene,to frame Oswald, then  an out of alignment and defective scope with tendency to drift off zero after just one shot, would be introducing unnecessary doubt.

I'm speaking from memory, but I believe the theory was that Oswald had Ryder mount a scope and that Oswald was then able to offer a fully aligned, sighted-in Carcano to the purchaser - but that would not explain the condition of the rifle when found in the TSBD. Maybe "they" used the sighted-in rifle for the assassination and switched out the scope before leaving? Nah, that makes no sense. Maybe I'd better stop trying to defend a theory I barely remember.

There are 2 options as I see it:
A. Oswald was the shooter and he purposely made sure the scope was out of alignment and he practiced using the iron sights. His idea was that the out of alignment defective scope would aid his “I’m a patsy being set up” if he were to ever get arrested.
B. Conspirator shooter never bothered to check out the scope, because the MC rifle was simply a pre planted gimmick left behind to cause maximum angst for the authorities whom the conspirator probably knew would be under pressure to avoid any conspiracy investigation.  The conspirator wished to problems for the authority while also causing the general public to be suspicious of the authority.
An ex CIA BOP survivor whom had a vendetta against Oswald for having been working with Guy Bannister as an informant? Also maybe the conspirator(s) wanted the general public to experience some pain as retribution for supporting JFK even as they knew that JFK had betrayed the conspirators BOP comrades.

Of course, the scope issue is outside the scope (pun?) of the "curtain rods" issue I'm trying to get at. Concerning the scope, I do think your two options are about it.

In regard to "A," my actual belief is that the JFKA was an unplanned, last-minute decision by Oswald and he either used the iron sights or knew the rifle shot 2" low and to the right (or whatever) with the scope. There is also the possibility, I suppose, that the scope could have been knocked significantly out of alignment in post-assassination handling.

In regard to "B," my guess would be that the rifle was simply a plant and the conspirators really didn't care what shape it was in. That's one of my problems with any conspiracy theory. In 1975, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with an excellent 4X Weaver scope out of a guy's trunk in a Phoenix parking lot for a mere $75 - a much more plausible assassination weapon that presumably could have been bought for $50 in 1963. If Oswald was a patsy, why was he not equipped with a less problematical weapon?

It all adds up to me that on 11-22 Oswald was stuck with the rifle he actually owned on 11-21 and made do with what he had.

[John Mytton]

I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

In Randle's WC testimony, she wants to shrink the bag even more by suddenly interjecting with the "27 last time" comment. And even a 27 inch bag would be too long for anybody Oswald's size to store it from armpit to cupped hand. I'm over 6 feet tall and I can barely get 24 inches in there.

Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

My interpretation of Randle's testimony.



Frazier's size estimates were a bit iffy.

Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm



But whatever it was, it was sure too long for an apple and a sandwich.



JohnM

[Lance Payette]

In the 11/23/63 FBI report they say she believed it was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

Great - I either didn't know that or had forgotten it. I was thinking of the visit a week or two later where Odum tried to replicate the sack with Frazier and Randle and she came up with the 27". The suspicion, I would think, would have to be that she was trying to make her story conform more closely to Frazier's. It seems surprising that she was then so adamant with the WC and that they didn't challenge her with her original estimate. I also see that on Odum's visit she emphasized the package being "heavy," which would seem an unlikely description for curtain rods. Since CTers are so emphatic about Frazier and Randle being "the only ones who actually saw the package," it's interesting how they conveniently ignore that Randle's original estimate, the day after the assassination, was right on the money.