Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Lance Payette]

You absolutely do and it is in every post you have written about it.

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck onto this thread or this forum. Yes, I have studied the JFKA at some level for more than 50 years. Yes, at this point I do have a strong conviction that the Lone Nut narrative is essentially correct. Hence, this thread and indeed almost all of my posts are written from that perspective. Nevertheless, I would LOVE IT if there were even a reasonably plausible alternative narrative and would LOVE IT even more if Oswald were actually an innocent patsy. This would simply be WAY more interesting.

Sorry, I don't waste my time with tests or nutter challenges
  You only have to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.

You finally went there. The "I don't waste my time" ploy, which is typically understood to mean "I can't answer your arguments in a substantive way."

This isn't a test. It's an opportunity. As someone who self-identifies as an Independent Researcher of the JFK Assassination since 1980, surely you have thought through the curtain rod issue and arrived at what seems to you a plausible explanation, have you not? This is your opportunity to state it, clearly and succinctly. Make the disassembled rifle explanation look silly if you can! Why would you not welcome this opportunity?

[Michael Capasse]

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck onto this thread or this forum. Yes, I have studied the JFKA at some level for more than 50 years. Yes, at this point I do have a strong conviction that the Lone Nut narrative is essentially correct. Hence, this thread and indeed almost all of my posts are written from that perspective. Nevertheless, I would LOVE IT if there were even a reasonably plausible alternative narrative and would LOVE IT even more if Oswald were actually an innocent patsy. This would simply be WAY more interesting.

You finally went there. The "I don't waste my time" ploy, which is typically understood to mean "I can't answer your arguments in a substantive way."

This isn't a test. It's an opportunity. As someone who self-identifies as an Independent Researcher of the JFK Assassination since 1980, surely you have thought through the curtain rod issue and arrived at what seems to you a plausible explanation, have you not? This is your opportunity to state it, clearly and succinctly. Make the disassembled rifle explanation look silly if you can! Why would you not welcome this opportunity?

Sorry dude. - I have nothing to prove. Therefore, no need to play any nutter games
You only have to prove Lee Oswald killed john Kennedy

[Michael Capasse]

Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.

Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."

[Lance Payette]

I don't agree with that at all. He only shortens the rifle by 5 inches when disassembled. It still looks like a fishing rod, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Curtain rods are collapsible. Frazier never suspected anything but curtain rods.
 
A golf club is very easy. It is a pole. Demonstrate how one can hold a 5-6 inch wide package along the body (not gripped at the bottom) and
bend your knees and walk normal. Frazier was sure it was tucked under the arm and cupped at the bottom.

Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.

Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".

I don't NEED to answer anything
When did I say the package contained curtain rods?

Goodness, your "I don't waste my time" philosophy was short-lived! "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Well, you did say that nothing can make a rifle look like a curtain rod. But OK, we will now put you in the column of "Doesn't know what the package contained, but it was too short to be Oswald's rifle."

I think there is some confusion. I, and I believe you, are talking about Oswald walking quickly away from Frazier at the TSBD, not when Randle saw him. My belief is that the rifle remained disassembled just as it was at the Paine garage because (1) it would have been fatal to his plan if Ruth or Marina had observed him assembling the rifle and (2) the disassembled rifle would more closely have resembled curtain rods - not a perfect match, as Randle's testimony establishes, but better than the assembled rifle. I believe he was holding the package straight up and down as Frazier said and you suggest. I don't believe there would be any difficulty in wedging the butt end under his armpit and walking with the package tight to his side with the barrel end between his fingers, which could well give the impression from behind that the barrel end was cupped in his fingers when in fact it was protruding a few inches. When I do the putter experiment, with the putter head under my armpit and the grip end between my fingers, the grip end is indeed scarcely visible from behind. This is exactly what I would do if I wanted the putter to be as inconspicuous and invite as few questions as possible.

As for Randle's observation, I have always pictured him as John Mytton does - simply holding the butt end in his right hand because that's where the bag was open, with the barrel end hanging down toward the ground but not touching it.

[Michael Capasse]

I don't believe there would be any difficulty in wedging the butt end under his armpit and walking with the package tight to his side with the barrel end between his fingers, which could well give the impression from behind that the barrel end was cupped in his fingers when in fact it was protruding a few inches

made up  - put to a preset conclusion
Not consistent with what Frazier described.

[Duncan MacRae]

FWIW

[Michael Capasse]

FWIW

27 inches. Carried in his right hand ONLY.
thank you

[Lance Payette]

Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.

Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."

My best estimate is that Frazier isn't lying at all. He is honestly reporting what Oswald said and what he (Frazier) observed. He would be much more likely to accurately remember Oswald's curtain rod tale since Oswald gave it as an explanation at the TSBD in response to a specific question, Frazier repeated it to Randle that evening, and Oswald repeated in answer to a specific question the next morning. Ditto for Oswald saying he was going to buy his lunch, since here again this was in response to a specific question and was contrary to Oswald's usual practice when returning from Irving. There is no disconnect between Frazier accurately recalling what Oswald said and being mistaken in his observation of the package.

It is Oswald who is lying because, as I've previously suggested, he (1) knew there were no curtain rods and (2) a package of curtain rods sounds suspiciously like a disassembled rifle. It's also rather telling how quickly he agreed with Holmes' absurd suggestion that he might have brought a sandwich and an apple in a full-sized grocery bag.

There is the possibility, as we've previously noted, of Frazier being freaked by his own arrest and ownership of the even longer Enfield .303. There is at least the possibility that he, with Randle's sisterly support, wanted to distance himself from any package that could possibly have been a rifle. This would support why he and Randle both insisted the package was too short and why he said Oswald carried it the way he did. I don't find it likely that unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle would have held up as well as they did under intense questioning (and even pressure) if they were lying, so I lean toward an honest mistake by Frazier and Randle of the sort that eyewitnesses make all the time.

If Frazier and Randle had insisted Oswald was carrying nothing, or an ordinary little lunch sack, the problem would be much larger than it is.