JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 01:55:15 PM

Title: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 01:55:15 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed before but I just ran into this info from CD-296 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10697#relPageId=6&tab=page
  (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10697#relPageId=6&tab=page)

It turns out that one C. P. Schneider,of 2707 West Fifth Street, had been told by a neighbor of the Paines, Mrs. Ed Roberts of 2519 West Fifth Street, "that Willie Randle...... had driven Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, and that Oswald was carrying a package large enough to have contained a rifle."  There can be two possible explanations for Mrs. Ed Roberts comment to Mr. Schneider. One is that Mrs. Roberts did actually see Oswald carrying the bag or that LMR told Mrs. Roberts that the bag was large enough to have contained a rifle. LMR and Mrs. Roberts were neighbors, LMR visited Mrs. Roberts and they were involved along with Ruth Paine in trying to find a job for Oswald. (See LMR WC testimony)

As can be readily noticed either Mr. Schneider misremembered the name of the driver or Mrs. Ed Roberts confused Willie Randle for BWF. In either instance neither Mrs. Ed Roberts or Mr. C. P. Schneider are included in the list of witnesses provided in Appendix V of the WR. To those of you who complain that the WC only called on witnesses that favored the "prosecution" here are two witnesses that were not called who could have provided additional evidence as to the bag carried by Oswald on the morning of 11/22.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 02:03:58 PM
Mr Jack Dougherty to the Warren Commission:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 02, 2019, 02:04:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if this has been discussed before but I just ran into this info from CD-296 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10697#relPageId=6&tab=page
  (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10697#relPageId=6&tab=page)

It turns out that one C. P. Schneider,of 2707 West Fifth Street, had been told by a neighbor of the Paines, Mrs. Ed Roberts of 2519 West Fifth Street, "that Willie Randle...... had driven Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, and that Oswald was carrying a package large enough to have contained a rifle."  There can be two possible explanations for Mrs. Ed Roberts comment to Mr. Schneider. One is that Mrs. Roberts did actually see Oswald carrying the bag or that LMR told Mrs. Roberts that the bag was large enough to have contained a rifle. LMR and Mrs. Roberts were neighbors, LMR visited Mrs. Roberts and they were involved along with Ruth Paine in trying to find a job for Oswald. (See LMR WC testimony)

As can be readily noticed either Mr. Schneider misremembered the name of the driver or Mrs. Ed Roberts confused Willie Randle for BWF. In either instance neither Mrs. Ed Roberts or Mr. C. P. Schneider are included in the list of witnesses provided in Appendix V of the WR. To those of you who complain that the WC only called on witnesses that favored the "prosecution" here are two witnesses that were not called who could have provided additional evidence as to the bag carried by Oswald on the morning of 11/22.


What is this double hearsay of BS....    BS information that has no basis in fact.......

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 02:14:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Jack Dougherty to the Warren Commission:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 ???

I really doubt that Shelley told that to Dougherty.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I really doubt that Shelley told that to Dougherty.

Why?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 02:17:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is this double hearsay of BS....    BS information that has no basis in fact.......

Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 02:21:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why?

Because Dougherty was not the most reliable of witnesses.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 02:23:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because Dougherty was not the most reliable of witnesses.

Do you believe he just made this up? If so, why would he do so---especially just after giving to understand that he himself had not seen Mr Oswald carrying a package into the building first thing that morning?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 02:28:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you believe he just made this up? If so, why would he do so---especially just after giving to understand that he himself had not seen Mr Oswald carrying a package into the building first thing that morning?

Yes, I believe that Dougherty made that up. Let me read both Dougherty and Shelley's testimony and I'll get back to you.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I believe that Dougherty made that up. Let me read both Dougherty and Shelley's testimony and I'll get back to you.

Great, Mr Navarro, thank you! The best way to discredit one unreliable witness is without doubt to weaponize the testimony of another  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 02, 2019, 02:48:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Jack Dougherty to the Warren Commission:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 ???

So does that mean Oswald was not carrying a package along the size estimated by Frazier?  CTers appear to want to have it both ways.  Relying on Frazier's estimate of a bag as gospel and also citing evidence that Oswald had no long bag at all.  It has to be one or the other.  It can't be both.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, Mr Navarro, thank you! The best way to discredit one unreliable witness is without doubt to weaponize the testimony of another  :D

You want to rely on the testimony of Dougherty be my guest. What Mr. Shelley saw was the bag that held the chicken sandwich after the shooting and that's what he probably told Dougherty but, Dougherty being Dougherty, it became a good sized package. Shelley was again questioned after Dougherty and the subject didn't come up so Ball must have by then figured that Dougherty was not a very reliable witness.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So does that mean Oswald was not carrying a package along the size estimated by Frazier?  CTers appear to want to have it both ways.  Relying on Frazier's estimate of a bag as gospel and also citing evidence that Oswald had no long bag at all.  It has to be one or the other.  It can't be both.

Honest researchers start with a question, kooks (of the LN or CT type) with an answer!

Something made Mr Oswald leave the Depository with undue haste, go back to his room, grab a pistol and go to a movie theatre.

You call that something, 'The fact that he had just shot JFK'. To which absurd proposition I react with a laugh!

I call that something, 'Possibly the rifle which he may, at some point, have brought into the Depository'. To which reasonable proposition you will react by repeating, automaton-like, 'He shot JFK! He shot JFK!'

A fun game!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 03:05:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You want to rely on the testimony of Dougherty be my guest. What Mr. Shelley saw was the bag that held the chicken sandwich after the shooting and that's what he probably told Dougherty

Are you thinking of the sandwich which Mr Shelley testified he had seen Mr C. Givens eating up there earlier in the day? Or the chicken which Mr Shelley more vaguely testified "those colored boys" were always eating?

I'm beginning to see why you consider Mr Shelley such a reliable witness, Mr Navarro-----you don't know his testimony very well!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 02, 2019, 03:19:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honest researchers start with a question, kooks (of the LN or CT type) with an answer!

Something made Mr Oswald leave the Depository with undue haste, go back to his room, grab a pistol and go to a movie theatre.

You call that something, 'The fact that he had just shot JFK'. To which absurd proposition I react with a laugh!

I call that something, 'Possibly the rifle which he may, at some point, have brought into the Depository'. To which reasonable proposition you will react by repeating, automaton-like, 'He shot JFK! He shot JFK!'

A fun game!  Thumb1:

I'm not sure what you are babbling about here. I noted that CTers argue that Frazier's estimate of the bag Oswald carried is correct but they also cite evidence that he carried no long bag at all.  Those are mutually inconsistent claims.  They both cannot be true.  So help us here and explain which of these two you are rejecting.  You should not cite evidence that Oswald had no long bag at all if you want to maintain a claim that he carried a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  It is intellectually dishonest.  Not that that ever has been a cause for concern among fringe CTers.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 03:21:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you thinking of the sandwich which Mr Shelley testified he had seen Mr C. Givens eating up there earlier in the day? Or the chicken which Mr Shelley more vaguely testified "those colored boys" were always eating?

I'm beginning to see why you consider Mr Shelley such a reliable witness, Mr Navarro-----you don't know his testimony very well!  Thumb1:

 Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.

That's the part of the testimony I'm referring to. Now, since you're such an expert in Shelley's testimony why don't you show when it was that he saw Givens with a lunch paper sack? Also, tell us why Shelley should not be considered a reliable witness as compared to Dougherty.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 03:43:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.

That's the part of the testimony I'm referring to. Now, since you're such an expert in Shelley's testimony why don't you show when it was that he saw Givens with a lunch paper sack? Also, tell us why Shelley should not be considered a reliable witness as compared to Dougherty.

Outstanding research, Mr Navarro!  Thumb1:

But! You wrote:

"What Mr. Shelley saw was the bag that held the chicken sandwich after the shooting and that's what he probably told Dougherty but, Dougherty being Dougherty, it became a good sized package."

What 'bag that held the chicken sandwich' are you talking about?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 03:49:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure what you are babbling about here. I noted that CTers argue that Frazier's estimate of the bag Oswald carried is correct but they also cite evidence that he carried no long bag at all.  Those are mutually inconsistent claims.  They both cannot be true.

 :D

Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?

Quote
  So help us here and explain which of these two you are rejecting.  You should not cite evidence that Oswald had no long bag at all if you want to maintain a claim that he carried a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  It is intellectually dishonest.  Not that that ever has been a cause for concern among fringe CTers.

I don't know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, for the simple reason that I wasn't there----and that Mr Frazier is not a reliable witness on several counts! 

You do know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, because your gullibility when it comes to the official story is without limit!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2019, 04:15:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.

What evidence is that (other than assumption) that the bag LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry is the same one as the one that was allegedly found at the SN?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 04:18:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Outstanding research, Mr Navarro!  Thumb1:

But! You wrote:

"What Mr. Shelley saw was the bag that held the chicken sandwich after the shooting and that's what he probably told Dougherty but, Dougherty being Dougherty, it became a good sized package."

What 'bag that held the chicken sandwich' are you talking about?

The meaning is the same, Mr. Ford. The sack, or bag, relates to the chicken. Now, how about answering the questions asked.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 04:23:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What evidence is that (other than assumption) that the bag LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry is the same one as the one that was allegedly found at the SN?

The fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 04:24:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The meaning is the same, Mr. Ford. The sack, or bag, relates to the chicken. Now, how about answering the questions asked.

Ah, so you realise you misspoke! A teachable moment, eh?  Thumb1:

Now! The 'meaning' is not 'the same'. Why else would Mr Shelley himself, in his testimony, undermine the notion that the bag relates to the chicken sandwich which Mr Givens has assured him he ate that morning?

And where is your evidence that Mr Shelley associated the bag-with-the-chicken-bones with Mr Oswald? Or were you just making that bit up?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 02, 2019, 04:26:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?

I don't know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, for the simple reason that I wasn't there----and that Mr Frazier is not a reliable witness on several counts! 

You do know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, because your gullibility when it comes to the official story is without limit!

Thumb1:

Almost every CTer that posts here has suggested that Oswald carried a bag too short to contain the rifle due to Frazier's estimate. But how about we start with you?  Which are you suggesting is more likely based on your "knowledge" of the case?  That Oswald had a long bag along the size Frazier estimated or that he had no long bag at all?  I bet you weren't present at the Lincoln assassination but can reach a conclusion as to who fired the shot in that case.  It is absurd to suggest someone must be present at the event to make a reasoned conclusion from the evidence as to what occurred.  It is peculiar to become so circumspect when it suits your purpose.  Can you at least acknowledge that Oswald either had a long bag or he did not?  Therefore, it is dishonest to suggest both are true?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 04:43:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Almost every CTer that posts here has suggested that Oswald carried a bag too short to contain the rifle due to Frazier's estimate. But how about we start with you?  Which are you suggesting is more likely based on your "knowledge" of the case?  That Oswald had a long bag along the size Frazier estimated or that he had no long bag at all?  I bet you weren't present at the Lincoln assassination but can reach a conclusion as to who fired the shot in that case.  It is absurd to suggest someone must be present at the event to make a reasoned conclusion from the evidence as to what occurred.  It is peculiar to become so circumspect when it suits your purpose.  Can you at least acknowledge that Oswald either had a long bag or he did not?  Therefore, it is dishonest to suggest both are true?

Great questions, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:

Most CTers are, it is true, hostile to the notion that Mr Oswald carried the Carcano into the Depository that morning. They ask questions like,
-------------When or how did Mr Oswald construct this large bag at the wrapping table?
-------------Why has Mr Frazier been so insistent that the bag Mr Oswald carried that morning was too small to be the large bag that went into evidence?
-------------Why no photos of the large bag in the SN?

These are good questions, and I'm not satisfied that any LNer has answered them satisfactorily!

And! There is nothing inconsistent, still less intellectually dishonest, about saying the bag Mr Oswald carried was sizeable but not as large as the bag entered into evidence. So cut that nonsense!

But I remain agnostic. Something made Mr Oswald leave the scene quickly and do the odd things he did. I am not closed to the possibility that this something was conscious involvement in the assassination plot----------such as, for instance, supplying the/a rifle.

There are other possibilities, however. (Mr Oswald having fired from the 6th fl window is emphatically not one of them!)

Mr Frazier's protestations about the bag may be due to displaced guilt over something else he saw that day but isn't telling. He certainly talks like a man who knows 'Lee' didn't do it.

John Wilkes Booth? We know he shot President Lincoln. We don't know who shot President Kennedy. Big difference!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2019, 05:26:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?

Nobody argues that. This is ?Richard??s usual strawman BS.

Frazier saw Oswald carry a bag. That doesn?t mean that bag was ever taken into the TSBD. And it certainly doesn?t mean that bag was CE142.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2019, 05:29:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.

Who says the bag seen by Frazier or Randle was ever in the TSBD?

Harold Norman?s lunch bag was not found in the TSBD either. Does that mean he didn?t have one?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 05:35:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, so you realise you misspoke! A teachable moment, eh?  Thumb1:

Now! The 'meaning' is not 'the same'. Why else would Mr Shelley himself, in his testimony, undermine the notion that the bag relates to the chicken sandwich which Mr Givens has assured him he ate that morning?

And where is your evidence that Mr Shelley associated the bag-with-the-chicken-bones with Mr Oswald? Or were you just making that bit up?

Where do I say that Shelley associated the chicken lunch bag with Oswald? How about answering my questions.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 02, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who says the bag seen by Frazier or Randle was ever in the TSBD?

Harold Norman?s lunch bag was not found in the TSBD either. Does that mean he didn?t have one?

The evidence says so.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.

So, it's nothing more than assumption?.

First of all, there is no record of the TSBD being searched for other bags. Secondly, the bag allegedly found at the SN did not match the description given by BWF and thirdly, the SN bag was shown to Frazier on Friday evening, while he was being polygraphed, and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Try dealing with known facts instead of assumption for once!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2019, 05:50:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Jack Dougherty to the Warren Commission:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 ???

That went nowhere
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 02, 2019, 06:21:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.

Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.

"Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning"    Yes that what they said....And they both said the bag they saw Lee carry was about 27 inches long...   That Mr Navaroo is 3/4 of a foot too short to conceal a 36 inch rifle.

"and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact."

The FACT is....The bag that was ALLEGEDLY found in the SE corner of the sixth floor was DEFINITELY NOT the bag that Frazier saw Lee carry that morning...And he told the DPD interrogators that the bag that they were showing him was NOT the bag that Lee was carrying that morning.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2019, 07:16:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, it's nothing more than assumption?.

First of all, there is no record of the TSBD being searched for other bags.
>>> Dang it! The DPD should have instantly put out an APB for suspicious looking, rifle-sized paper bags (with the caution that they may still be armed)  ;)

Secondly, the bag allegedly found at the SN did not match the description given by BWF
>>> You're assuming Frazier was being truthful. Frazier, the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime.

and thirdly, the SN bag was shown to Frazier on Friday evening, while he was being polygraphed, and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
>>> Yep. Seems he didn't see Oswald with a darkened bag
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2019, 07:43:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First of all, there is no record of the TSBD being searched for other bags.
>>> Dang it! The DPD should have instantly put out an APB for suspicious looking, rifle-sized paper bags (with the caution that they may still be armed)  ;)

Every time you have nothing of substance to contribute, you resort to misplaced sarcasm, whilst at the same time missing the point that was being made.

It's probably in vain, but I'll gladly waste a bit of my time to explain something as basic as this to you, although I expect it goes way over your head anyway. But here goes;

Oscar can not claim that "no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF" when the TSBD was never searched for that kind of bag to begin with.

I hope that's not to complicated for you to understand.

Quote
Secondly, the bag allegedly found at the SN did not match the description given by BWF
>>> You're assuming Frazier was being truthful. Frazier, the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime.

Let me guess? but you can of course assume that he wasn't being truthful, right?

Too bad for you that it wasn't only Frazier who gave the description. His sister did as well.

Quote
and thirdly, the SN bag was shown to Frazier on Friday evening, while he was being polygraphed, and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
>>> Yep. Seems he didn't see Oswald with a (partially) two-toned bag

Who cares what he didn't see when we know that he saw Oswald carry a flimsy bag not one made from TSBD heavy duty wrapping paper.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 02, 2019, 07:58:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Every time you have nothing of substance to contribute, you resort to misplaced sarcasm, whilst at the same time missing the point that was being made.

It's probably in vain, but I'll gladly waste a bit of my time to explain something as basic as this to you, although I expect it goes way over your head anyway. But here goes;

Oscar can not claim that "no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF" when the TSBD was never searched for that kind of bag to begin with.

I hope that's not to complicated for you to understand.

Let me guess? but you can of course assume that he wasn't being truthful, right?

Too bad for you that it wasn't only Frazier who gave the description. His sister did as well.

Who cares what he didn't see when we know that he saw Oswald carry a flimsy bag not one made from TSBD heavy duty wrapping paper.

I'm starting to think that this Oscar guy......is the puppet from Sesame Street.....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2019, 08:06:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence says so.

No it doesn?t. Your evidence that CE 142 is the same package that Frazier saw is that you want it to be the same package.

Either way, there?s no evidence that a rifle was ever in either package, so I?m not sure what difference it makes.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2019, 08:09:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and thirdly, the SN bag was shown to Frazier on Friday evening, while he was being polygraphed, and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
>>> Yep. Seems he didn't see Oswald with a darkened bag

So now Chapman thinks the bag was darkened on Friday evening.

The hits just keep coming.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 02, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So now Chapman thinks the bag was darkened on Friday evening.

The hits just keep coming.

So now Chapman thinks the bag was darkened on Friday evening.

You've made a couple of poor assumptions Mr I.....  First of you suggest that Crapman has the ability to reason.... ( I've never seen any indication of that) and you assume that Crapman knows any of the FACTS.....   I doubt the he knows that the bag was darkened during the testing done by the FBI on Saturday 11/23/63.

He doesn't know anything and constantly displays his ignorance, ....If he'd shut up and listen ...He probably wouldn't appear to be so damned dumb. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 02, 2019, 09:33:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Every time you have nothing of substance to contribute, you resort to misplaced sarcasm, whilst at the same time missing the point that was being made.

It's probably in vain, but I'll gladly waste a bit of my time to explain something as basic as this to you, although I expect it goes way over your head anyway. But here goes;

Oscar can not claim that "no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF" when the TSBD was never searched for that kind of bag to begin with.

I hope that's not to complicated for you to understand.

Let me guess? but you can of course assume that he wasn't being truthful, right?

Too bad for you that it wasn't only Frazier who gave the description. His sister did as well.

Who cares what he didn't see when we know that he saw Oswald carry a flimsy bag not one made from TSBD heavy duty wrapping paper.

That's typical idiot logic.  There is no evidence that they were searching for the first bag but that was found.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  Game over.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2019, 09:39:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's typical idiot logic.  There is no evidence that they were searching for the first bag but that was found.  It had Oswald's prints on it.  Game over.

Richard, if you have nothing of any value to add, why don't you simply not post rather than exposing yourself as a complete idiot time after time?

A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes

Game over? Nah, game on!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2019, 09:51:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Every time you have nothing of substance to contribute, you resort to misplaced sarcasm, whilst at the same time missing the point that was being made.

It's probably in vain, but I'll gladly waste a bit of my time to explain something as basic as this to you, although I expect it goes way over your head anyway. But here goes;

Oscar can not claim that "no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF" when the TSBD was never searched for that kind of bag to begin with.

I hope that's not to complicated for you to understand.

Let me guess? but you can of course assume that he wasn't being truthful, right?

Too bad for you that it wasn't only Frazier who gave the description. His sister did as well.

Who cares what he didn't see when we know that he saw Oswald carry a flimsy bag not one made from TSBD heavy duty wrapping paper.

Martin Weidmann: Haughty/Condescending Individual#1
A year or so ago, you said I was not worth posting to, yet here you are.

Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw. And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores.

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that. Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected. You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 03, 2019, 09:57:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you thinking of the sandwich which Mr Shelley testified he had seen Mr C. Givens eating up there earlier in the day? Or the chicken which Mr Shelley more vaguely testified "those colored boys" were always eating?

I'm beginning to see why you consider Mr Shelley such a reliable witness, Mr Navarro-----you don't know his testimony very well!  Thumb1:

The chicken that Givens denied having......seems we can have bits of testimony for all seasons......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 03, 2019, 10:17:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.

That's the part of the testimony I'm referring to. Now, since you're such an expert in Shelley's testimony why don't you show when it was that he saw Givens with a lunch paper sack? Also, tell us why Shelley should not be considered a reliable witness as compared to Dougherty.

So it seems that Shelley was back on the 6th floor before Johnson left with the bones inside the bag at 3pm. He saw the repositioned bones on to of the bag and their final resting place near the third set of windows. Of course we know that a number of officers reported the chicken bones and or bag originally close to the SN.

Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 10:29:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Martin Weidmann: Haughty/Condescending Individual#1
A year or so ago, you said I was not worth posting to, yet here you are.

Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw. And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores.

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that. Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected. You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw.

Oh they showed him the bag numerous times and yet, till this day, he still denies that it was the bag Oswald carried.

And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores. 

And yet, Randle went to her grave having denied it was the bag Oswald carried all her life

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that.

You already did. That's why I mentioned him.

Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected.

You mean, they searched the 6th floor long enough to find those items... yes, they did

You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

The only one who constantly implies stuff is you!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2019, 10:51:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.
>>> Is that paper flimsy?

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
>>> AOEINNEOA.Yes? Or do you need to be at Oswald's elbow every inch of the way.

Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
>>> AOEINNAOE. Yes?

Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No
>>> Stombaugh couldn't rule out the bag. Yes? Stombaugh couldn't rule out the blanket fibres of the blanket found with Oswald's short & curlies on them. Yes?

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes
>>> Were these prints usable as evidence... or simply too smeared, thus putting Oswald's fingerprints in contention. Yes/No?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 11:12:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.
>>> Is that paper flimsy?


No, but the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry was.

Quote

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
>>> AOEINNEOA.Yes? Or do you need to be at Oswald's elbow every inch of the way.

Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
>>> AOEINNAOE. Yes?


If you want a reply, please write in a way that others can understand

Quote

Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No
>>> Stombaugh couldn't rule out the bag. Yes? Stombaugh couldn't rule out the blanket fibres of the blanket found with Oswald's short & curlies on them. Yes?


In other words; there is indeed no evidence that there ever was rifle in that bag.

Quote

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes
>>> Were these prints usable as evidence... or simply too smeared, thus putting Oswald's fingerprints in contention. Yes/No?

The prints were there and them being not good enough for identification leaves the possibility open that others than Oswald could also have touched that bag.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 03, 2019, 02:37:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Richard, if you have nothing of any value to add, why don't you simply not post rather than exposing yourself as a complete idiot time after time?

A bag made from TSBD materials allegedly found inside the TSBD where Oswald happened to work.

Did anyone see Oswald make that bag? No
Did anyone see that bag in Oswald's possession? No
Was there any evidence that there ever was a rifle in that bag? No

Where there other prints on that bag that were not identified? Yes

Game over? Nah, game on!

LOL. More idiotic nonsense.  No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.  Oswald was seen carrying a long bag into work that morning.  No other person is reported to have carried any such bag.  Oswald's prints are found on the bag.  The idea that this can be explained away by the fact "that he worked there" is fall on the ground laughing material.  What bad luck LHO had that day at every turn!  His prints are found on the very bag and SN boxes by the very window from which bullet casings from his rifle are found and witnesses confirm they saw a rifle.  No other explanation is ever provided for the bag.  No other employee comes forward to explain or claim it.  There is no apparent work-related purpose for it to be there.  No bag matching Frazier's shorter estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way.  And if there were any doubt whatsoever, Oswald himself denies carrying any long bag.  If he had a bag that morning along the size estimated by Frazier and it contained no incriminating object, why would he lie and deny it?  His incentives would be to insist that he had such a bag and point the DPD to its location if it would provide evidence of his innocence.  Instead he does the exact opposite because the bag he carried contained something he did not want to be associated with.  Now think real hard about what that might be in this case.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 03, 2019, 02:47:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, but the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry was.

If you want a reply, please write in a way that others can understand

In other words; there is indeed no evidence that there ever was rifle in that bag.

The prints were there and them being not good enough for identification leaves the possibility open that others than Oswald could also have touched that bag.

Please correct me if I'm wrong....But didn't our old friend Tony Fratini present evidence that Lt Day had made a note on the bag that went to the FBI lab ?   As I recall the note that Day had written said that there was a palm print on the sack and he drew a circle around that area.   But The FBI said they had to use a method that destroyed the bag as evidence to look for prints.

PS....  The part about using that destructive method was simply BS..... Hoover wanted that bag destroyed.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 05:44:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL. More idiotic nonsense.  No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.  Oswald was seen carrying a long bag into work that morning.  No other person is reported to have carried any such bag.  Oswald's prints are found on the bag.  The idea that this can be explained away by the fact "that he worked there" is fall on the ground laughing material.  What bad luck LHO had that day at every turn!  His prints are found on the very bag and SN boxes by the very window from which bullet casings from his rifle are found and witnesses confirm they saw a rifle.  No other explanation is ever provided for the bag.  No other employee comes forward to explain or claim it.  There is no apparent work-related purpose for it to be there.  No bag matching Frazier's shorter estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way.  And if there were any doubt whatsoever, Oswald himself denies carrying any long bag.  If he had a bag that morning along the size estimated by Frazier and it contained no incriminating object, why would he lie and deny it?  His incentives would be to insist that he had such a bag and point the DPD to its location if it would provide evidence of his innocence.  Instead he does the exact opposite because the bag he carried contained something he did not want to be associated with.  Now think real hard about what that might be in this case.

No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.

And you talk about idiotic nonsense? The fact that nobody saw anyone make the bag merely means that you can not simply claim that Oswald made it, since you have no evidence for that, only wild assumptions.

Everything else in your rant is based on one assumption after another combined with unsubstantiated claims. Making up a narrative out of speculation is easy. You know this because you do it all the time. Backing it up with conclusive evidence is the hard part. And you know that too, as you always fail to do so.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 03, 2019, 06:25:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one saw anyone make the bag made.  That would mean under your bizarre logic that it wasn't made even though it exists.

And you talk about idiotic nonsense? The fact that nobody saw anyone make the bag merely means that you can not simply claim that Oswald made it, since you have no evidence for that, only wild assumptions.

Everything else in your rant is based on one assumption after another combined with unsubstantiated claims. Making up a narrative out of speculation is easy. You know this because you do it all the time. Backing it up with conclusive evidence is the hard part. And you know that too, as you always fail to do so.

I can understand why you are running scared from facts and logic and trying to avoid discussing them.  Your silly claim is that because no one saw Oswald make the bag that somehow means he didn't do so.  But we know someone did make the bag undetected because that is what happened.  As a result, Oswald is not precluded in any way whatsoever from being that person.  In fact, he was better positioned than a stranger to have access to materials and opportunity to construct the bag undetected.  But that is rabbit hole CTer nonsense.  Oswald's prints are on the bag.  That's called evidence not speculation or wild assumption.  Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD.  Evidence.  He lies about it.  Evidence.  Common sense dictates that you don't lie about the contents of a bag if it is exculpatory and assists you.  Only if it is incriminatory.  But you throw facts, common sense, and evidence out the window because you don't like the obvious conclusion.  There is zero doubt in the historical record beyond the fringe element that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th floor. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 06:39:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD.

Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 03, 2019, 06:49:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL. More idiotic nonsense.  No one saw anyone make the bag made.    
Talk about nonsense. "No one saw anyone make the bag made". And that post was edited for grammatical correction?
Worse than catatonic ??? Who besides Make it all up as she goes along Marina ever saw Oswald with this Carcano rifle. [And even she couldn't really identify it]
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 07:01:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can understand why you are running scared from facts and logic and trying to avoid discussing them.  Your silly claim is that because no one saw Oswald make the bag that somehow means he didn't do so.  But we know someone did make the bag undetected because that is what happened.  As a result, Oswald is not precluded in any way whatsoever from being that person.  In fact, he was better positioned than a stranger to have access to materials and opportunity to construct the bag undetected.  But that is rabbit hole CTer nonsense.  Oswald's prints are on the bag.  That's called evidence not speculation or wild assumption.  Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD.  Evidence.  He lies about it.  Evidence.  Common sense dictates that you don't lie about the contents of a bag if it is exculpatory and assists you.  Only if it is incriminatory.  But you throw facts, common sense, and evidence out the window because you don't like the obvious conclusion.  There is zero doubt in the historical record beyond the fringe element that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th floor.

I can understand why you are running scared from facts and logic and trying to avoid discussing them.

What facts in your delusional rant do I run away from? You don't know what a fact is when it hits you in the face. You clearly lack the ability to differentiate between a true fact and the assumptions you think are facts.

Your silly claim is that because no one saw Oswald make the bag that somehow means he didn't do so.

Nope.. that's not my claim at all. Anybody with a functional brain understands that it is not my claim.

But we know someone did make the bag undetected because that is what happened. 

Yes, so what?

As a result, Oswald is not precluded in any way whatsoever from being that person.

And neither is anybody else who had access to the shipping room of the TSBD.

In fact, he was better positioned than a stranger to have access to materials and opportunity to construct the bag undetected.

Anybody who worked in the TSBD would have been better positioned than a stranger.

Oswald's prints are on the bag.  That's called evidence not speculation or wild assumption.

And so are other prints. The fact that they can not be identified means it can not be ruled out that others touched the bag as well. When you cite evidence, please cite it correctly and completely and not just the part that serves your purpose!

Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD.  Evidence.

Evidence of what exactly? That he carried a bag... sure, but two witnesses who actually saw the bag said that it wasn't the one that was allegdly found at the TSBD

He lies about it.  Evidence.

Again, evidence of what? He was asked if he brought in a large bag and he says; no, only a lunch bag. In other words, he simply denies the bag he brought in was large!

Common sense dictates that you don't lie about the contents of a bag if it is exculpatory and assists you.  Only if it is incriminatory.

The only problem with that is you can't even demonstrate conclusively that he actually lied, so all the "common sense" crap you attach to it is just that; crap! And no amount of circular reasoning on your part is going to alter that.

But you throw facts, common sense, and evidence out the window because you don't like the obvious conclusion.

Wrong again. I just don't like jumping to conclusions based on assumptions as you do all the time.

There is zero doubt in the historical record beyond the fringe element that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th floor.

There is zero conclusive evidence that he did that. Doubt there is plenty of whether you like and agree with that or not.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 07:04:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 Thumb1:

There is no point in confronting Richard Smith with facts?. He is immune and impervious to them.

Try wild speculative conjecture and call it common sense logic and you might get through to him.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 08:09:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no point in confronting Richard Smith with facts?. He is immune and impervious to them.

Try wild speculative conjecture and call it common sense logic and you might get through to him.

I fear you're right, Mr Weidmann!  :(
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2019, 10:02:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Buell was shown the fingerprinted bag at another time, when he indicated it could have been the bag he saw.

"Oh they showed him the bag numerous times and yet, till this day, he still denies that it was the bag Oswald carried."

>>> Yep. The guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who lost a job and suffered harassment from the genpop because of his involvement with the (eventual) prime suspect. The guy who said he didn't want to be remembered as ? wait for it ? the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind. The bag that only exposed a sliver of the Buell-estimated 27" long bag carried by the 5'9" (eventual) prime suspect who must have been a knuckle-dragger to have been able to fit that size under his armpit. The (eventual) prime suspect who,seemed to have found it more efficient to carry said bag in a more exposed position less than an hour earlier that very morning.
 
And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores.

"And yet, Randle went to her grave having denied it was the bag Oswald carried all her life"
>>> Yep. The sister of the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The sister who initially said the bag was about two and a half feet long and looked long enough to contain a rifle.   

Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that.

"You already did. That's why I mentioned him."
>>> What gave you the idea that I agreed with him

Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected.

"You mean, they searched the 6th floor long enough to find those items... yes, they did"
>>> Yep. And bad luck for Oswald

You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

"The only one who constantly implies stuff is you!"
>>> BUMP
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2019, 10:23:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Oh they showed him the bag numerous times and yet, till this day, he still denies that it was the bag Oswald carried."

>>> Yep. The guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who lost a job and suffered harassment from the genpop because of his involvement with the (eventual) prime suspect. The guy who said he didn't want to be remembered as ? wait for it ? the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind. The bag that only exposed a sliver of the Buell-estimated 27" long bag carried by the 5'9" (eventual) prime suspect who must have been a knuckle-dragger to have been able to fit that size under his armpit. The (eventual) prime suspect who, it seems to me to find it more efficient to carry said bag in a more exposed position less than an hour earlier that very morning.
 

Yeah, that guy? the guy who saw the package lying on the backseat of his car, the guy who saw Oswald putting the package in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder, the guy who, on Friday evening, only hours after the murder, denied that the bag shown to him was the same as the bag he had seen, the same guy Captain Fritz tried to beat a false confession out of. And oh yeah, the same guy, who despite all the problems in life he experienced due to his involvement in this mess still says to this day that the bag they showed him wasn't the one Oswald carried.

And before I forget;

This: "The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind." is a lie. When you need to lie to make a point, you've already lost the argument!

Quote
And Randle testified to the bag being a thick wrapping-type paper, not the kind found in grocery stores.

"And yet, Randle went to her grave having denied it was the bag Oswald carried all her life"
>>> Yep. The sister of the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The sister who initially said the bag was about two and a half feet long and looked long enough to contain a rifle.   

Stop lying. Randle never said that the bag looked long enough to contain a rifle.

Quote
Why are you mentioning Oscar to me? You sound like you want me to chime in on that.

"You already did. That's why I mentioned him."
>>> What gave you the idea that I agreed with him

You are in the habit of bringing up stuff you disagree with? Well, that's good to know

Quote
Well, the police searched the TSBD long enough to find a high-powered rifle. The casings were a bonus, and the bag not expected.

"You mean, they searched the 6th floor long enough to find those items... yes, they did"
>>> Yep. And bad luck for Oswald

Indeed, bad luck for Oswald as it stopped any fair investigation dead in it's tracks

Quote

You wouldn't happen to be implying that other rifles and other gun bags should have been expected to be found elsewhere in the TSBD that day, now would you, Lord Haughty?

"The only one who constantly implies stuff is you!"
>>> BUMP

Already answered.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 04:40:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Oh they showed him the bag numerous times and yet, till this day, he still denies that it was the bag Oswald carried."

>>> Yep. The guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who lost a job and suffered harassment from the genpop because of his involvement with the (eventual) prime suspect. The guy who said he didn't want to be remembered as ? wait for it ? the guy who drove the (eventual) prime suspect to the (eventual) scene of the crime. The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind. The bag that only exposed a sliver of the Buell-estimated 27" long bag carried by the 5'9" (eventual) prime suspect who must have been a knuckle-dragger to have been able to fit that size under his armpit. The (eventual) prime suspect who,seemed to have found it more efficient to carry said bag in a more exposed position less than an hour earlier that very morning.

Is this your long-winded way of saying that there is no evidence that CE 142 was the package that Frazier saw?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2019, 05:48:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this your long-winded way of saying that there is no evidence that CE 142 was the package that Frazier saw?

Uh, no
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2019, 07:18:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, that guy? the guy who saw the package lying on the backseat of his car, the guy who saw Oswald putting the package in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder, the guy who, on Friday evening, only hours after the murder, denied that the bag shown to him was the same as the bag he had seen, the same guy Captain Fritz tried to beat a false confession out of. And oh yeah, the same guy, who despite all the problems in life he experienced due to his involvement in this mess still says to this day that the bag they showed him wasn't the one Oswald carried.

>>> Yep, that guy. The one who said he didn't want to be remembered as the guy who drove the prime suspect to work and was smart enough to stick to an estimate that would put him in an innocent light. You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him. He would get the opposite result of that which he says he wanted. Duh.

And the bag he was initially shown him that you said he 'instantly' denied as the bag he saw... well, Buell had the habit of not really paying attention to the package, now didn't he?

Oh, before I forget, This: "The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind." is a lie. When you need to lie to make a point, you've already lost the argument!
>>> Point out where Buell said he saw Oswald from the front while he (Oswald) was carrying the bag. Or are you assuming Oswald turned full frontal to Buell while briefly waiting for him at the fence, and the back door..

Stop lying. Randle never said that the bag looked long enough to contain a rifle.
>>> Where am I lying. I can only source what any given witness said. Maybe you should be calling Randle the liar for saying the bag she saw "could" have contained a rifle. By all reports it seems Randle was inconsistent with these estimations...which arguably could have been influenced by the realization that she would be seen as the sister of the guy who drove the prime suspect to the scene.

You are in the habit of bringing up stuff you disagree with? Well, that's good to know
>>> LOL.. did you just have a stroke, Barrister?  Everybody here brings up stuff they don't agree with hahaha

Indeed, bad luck for Oswald as it stopped any fair investigation dead in it's tracks
>>> Uh, no... bad luck for Oswald that his prints were found on the rifle, gun bag, and the topmost window box pointing straight down Broadway.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 07:53:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
>>> Yep, that guy. The one who said he didn't want to be remembered as the guy who drove the prime suspect to work and was smart enough to stick to an estimate that would put him in an innocent light. You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him. He would get the opposite result of that which he says he wanted. Duh.

Is this empty speculation supposed to prove it was the same bag?

Quote
>>> Uh, no... bad luck for Oswald that his prints were found on the rifle,

Uh, no. There were some prints near the trigger guard that were useless for identification purposes and a single partial palm print turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
gun bag,

What ?gun bag??

Quote
and the topmost window box pointing straight down Broadway.

LOL - you don?t even know what street the TSBD was on.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 10:23:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
>>> Yep, that guy. The one who said he didn't want to be remembered as the guy who drove the prime suspect to work and was smart enough to stick to an estimate that would put him in an innocent light. You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him. He would get the opposite result of that which he says he wanted. Duh.

And the bag he was initially shown him that you said he 'instantly' denied as the bag he saw... well, Buell had the habit of not really paying attention to the package, now didn't he?


The "I didn't pay much attention" claim came later. On Friday evening he was adamant. Only later did he become more cautious. Besides, the fact that he didn't pay much attention doesn't automatically mean that he was wrong.

You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him.

Even if true, you think this was a consideration on Frazier's mind hours after the murder, when Oswald was still alive in custody and there was no trace of the WC?


Quote

Oh, before I forget, This: "The guy who had only seen Oswald carrying the bag from behind." is a lie. When you need to lie to make a point, you've already lost the argument!
>>> Point out where Buell said he saw Oswald from the front while he (Oswald) was carrying the bag. Or are you assuming Oswald turned full frontal to Buell while briefly waiting for him at the fence, and the back door..


He saw Oswald put the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Do you foolishly think he saw that from behind? Did Frazier have X-ray vision, perhaps?

Quote
Stop lying. Randle never said that the bag looked long enough to contain a rifle.
>>> Where am I lying. I can only source what any given witness said. Maybe you should be calling Randle the liar for saying the bag she saw "could" have contained a rifle. By all reports it seems Randle was inconsistent with these estimations...which arguably could have been influenced by the realization that she would be seen as the sister of the guy who drove the prime suspect to the scene.


Stop rambling and just show us all where Randle ever said that the bag " looked long enough to contain a rifle." Go on then, we're waiting!   

Quote

You are in the habit of bringing up stuff you disagree with? Well, that's good to know
>>> LOL.. did you just have a stroke, Barrister?  Everybody here brings up stuff they don't agree with hahaha


Are you on medication? You are using arguments you don't believe in and you think others do that as well? Really?

Quote
Indeed, bad luck for Oswald as it stopped any fair investigation dead in it's tracks
>>> Uh, no... bad luck for Oswald that his prints were found on the rifle, gun bag, and the topmost window box pointing straight down Broadway.

Already destroyed by John Iacoletti
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 04, 2019, 10:49:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So it seems that Shelley was back on the 6th floor before Johnson left with the bones inside the bag at 3pm. He saw the repositioned bones on to of the bag and their final resting place near the third set of windows. Of course we know that a number of officers reported the chicken bones and or bag originally close to the SN.

Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?

Any armchair LN experts like to offer something?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 11:35:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Any armchair LN experts like to offer something?

As usual, Mr Crow, they got nothing!

And isn't it funny how the prints on the famous chicken-bone bag were forgotten once they didn't come up a match with Mr Oswald's!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 04, 2019, 12:50:05 PM
Was that the bag that Studebaker found a partial? The one carried out by Johnson with the bottle that was also dusted for prints inside the TSBD. At that stage they had no prints to compare it to.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 04, 2019, 02:52:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was that the bag that Studebaker found a partial? The one carried out by Johnson with the bottle that was also dusted for prints inside the TSBD. At that stage they had no prints to compare it to.

At that stage they had no prints to compare it to.  They had Charlie Given's prints on file...and they had Lee's prints at 4:30....

FWIW.....Lt JC Day said the Dr Pepper bottle was in their lab for weeks and he finally threw it away.....( Caution:  Day was one of the biggest liars at the DPD...which was a den of liars) 

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 04, 2019, 03:44:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 Thumb1:

Progress!  And just when intelligent people had cause to doubt it was possible.  So we can discount the claim that Oswald had no long bag in his possession when he entered the TSBD.  Hooray!  Glad you won't be citing that again.  Oswald has a long a bag when he enters the TSBD.  Check.  Now it boils down to the evidence.  On your side you have an estimate of Frazier of the bag's length.  Basically a guess as to the length of an object that he himself notes he barely had cause to notice. 

On the other side, we have such a bag that has Oswald's prints on it.  That bag exists and can be measured.  We don't have to guess or estimate its size.  It is the only such bag matching the general description.  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?  It is an important question that sheds considerable light on the contents of a bag.  People lie when it is in their own self-interest and certainly not when it is contrary to their self interest.  But here you would have us believe Oswald lies about carrying a long bag along Frazier's estimate when it would have assisted him considerably if it did not contain any incriminatory evidence.  Why again?  Because the bag he carried contained the rifle!  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.  He got it wrong by a few inches in that scenario and everything else falls into place.  In your wild fantasy alternative scenario, all manner of unresolved and improbable events would have to be reconciled or explained.  Where did the longer bag come from, what happened to the shorter bag, how did Oswald's prints get on the longer bag, why did Oswald lie... none of which any CTer can provide any explanation much less any plausible explanation.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 04:04:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 Thumb1:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Progress!  And just when intelligent people had cause to doubt it was possible.  So we can discount the claim that Oswald had no long bag in his possession when he entered the TSBD.  Hooray!  Glad you won't be citing that again.  Oswald has a long a bag when he enters the TSBD.  Check.  Now it boils down to the evidence.  On your side you have an estimate of Frazier of the bag's length.  Basically a guess as to the length of an object that he himself notes he barely had cause to notice. 

On the other side, we have such a bag that has Oswald's prints on it.  That bag exists and can be measured.  We don't have to guess or estimate its size.  It is the only such bag matching the general description.  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?  It is an important question that sheds considerable light on the contents of a bag.  People lie when it is in their own self-interest and certainly not when it is contrary to their self interest.  But here you would have us believe Oswald lies about carrying a long bag along Frazier's estimate when it would have assisted him considerably if it did not contain any incriminatory evidence.  Why again?  Because the bag he carried contained the rifle!  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.  He got it wrong by a few inches in that scenario and everything else falls into place.  In your wild fantasy alternative scenario, all manner of unresolved and improbable events would have to be reconciled or explained.  Where did the longer bag come from, what happened to the shorter bag, how did Oswald's prints get on the longer bag, why did Oswald lie... none of which any CTer can provide any explanation much less any plausible explanation.

Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 04, 2019, 04:16:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   Thumb1:

NOW? what are you going to do with the skunk, Martin.... You've caught him by the tail ....but now what?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 04, 2019, 04:47:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   Thumb1:

You can't be for real.  Alan made specific reference to Oswald being seen by Frazier carrying a bag into the TSBD.  Frazier estimated that bag as being over two feet long!  Thus, the obvious implication is that he saw Oswald carrying a "long bag" into the TSBD.  Good grief.  Even a fringe kook should be able to piece that together.

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.  Lies confirmed in every possible manner.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 04, 2019, 05:02:00 PM
A few more things to ponder before reaching he erroneous conclusion that the long bag Oswald carried on the morning of 11/22/1963 was not the same bag found in the SN.

1) Frazier testified that Oswald always gave him a ride to Irving, TX on a Friday. This time Frazier gave Oswald a ride on a Thursday.
2) Frazier testified that day was the first time Oswald had actually walked over to his house before being picked up for work
3) Frazier testified that Oswald always carried a lunch bag and placed it on his lap but that morning Oswald told BWF he was going to buy his lunch. Oswald told interrogators he brought his lunch that day.
4) Frazier testified that he and Oswald always walked together to the TSBD. Oswald was 50' ahead of BWF when Oswald entered the TSBD.
5) Frazier testified that Oswald usually went to Irving on Friday's but when BWF asked Oswald if he would be going to Irving that Friday Oswald said no.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 06:24:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A few more things to ponder before reaching he erroneous conclusion that the long bag Oswald carried on the morning of 11/22/1963 was not the same bag found in the SN.

1) Frazier testified that Oswald always gave him a ride to Irving, TX on a Friday. This time Frazier gave Oswald a ride on a Thursday.
2) Frazier testified that day was the first time Oswald had actually walked over to his house before being picked up for work
3) Frazier testified that Oswald always carried a lunch bag and placed it on his lap but that morning Oswald told BWF he was going to buy his lunch. Oswald told interrogators he brought his lunch that day.
4) Frazier testified that he and Oswald always walked together to the TSBD. Oswald was 50' ahead of BWF when Oswald entered the TSBD.
5) Frazier testified that Oswald usually went to Irving on Friday's but when BWF asked Oswald if he would be going to Irving that Friday Oswald said no.

How do any of these points relate to whether CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 06:32:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't be for real.  Alan made specific reference to Oswald being seen by Frazier carrying a bag into the TSBD.  Frazier estimated that bag as being over two feet long!  Thus, the obvious implication is that he saw Oswald carrying a "long bag" into the TSBD.  Good grief.  Even a fringe kook should be able to piece that together.

Typical "Richard".  You make a claim that is false, "Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier", and when rightly called on it, you revert to insults and arrogance instead of admitting your error.  Cite anything whatsoever that states that Oswald was given a size estimate.

Quote
Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.

Also false.  Cite anything whatsoever that states that Oswald said he carried "an ordinary lunch sack".
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 06:44:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Progress!  And just when intelligent people had cause to doubt it was possible.  So we can discount the claim that Oswald had no long bag in his possession when he entered the TSBD.  Hooray!  Glad you won't be citing that again.   Oswald has a long a bag when he enters the TSBD.  Check.

How many times has this been discussed and you still don't get it.  Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not.

Quote
  Now it boils down to the evidence.

Yes, yes it does.  Do you have any evidence beyond your usual speculation that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

Quote
It is the only such bag matching the general description.

Bzzt.  Not only do you NOT know this to be true, it doesn't match the description that Frazier gave.

Quote
  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.

Bzzzt again.  You can't even account for it being in the SN when it was discovered.

Quote
  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.

This bogus argument is destroyed every time you make it and yet you persist.  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found or accounted for in any way?  Not finding something not not prove it doesn't exist.  That's the black swan fallacy.

Quote
  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

Still false.  Why don't you start providing exact quotes instead of false characterizations?  You'll be less likely to further embarrass yourself.

Quote
  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?

Every time your fallacies are exposed, you revert back to the "hero" and "saint" rhetoric.  Why?  Somebody has to have a hero in order to fairly evaluate evidence (or lack thereof)?

Quote
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.

No, it takes a guy who thinks that his speculations are evidence.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 04, 2019, 06:51:04 PM
I don't follow the angst about characterizing Frazier's description of the bag as "long."  Or that Oswald denied carrying any such bag.  Frazier said the bag Oswald carried was over two feet long.  That is a long bag.  Oswald was asked what he was carrying and he said he carried his lunch sack.  The bag being described by Frazier is not a lunch sack.  Now put those statement together.  If there were any doubt whatsoever on this point, Frazier specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he was not carrying it and Oswald confirmed he was carrying "curtain rods."  As a result, the clear, obvious and only implication that can be derived from this context is that Oswald denied carrying any long bag along the lines described by Frazier.  That is just a stone cold fact.  Oswald said he had a lunch sack.  Frazier said he didn't but had a much longer bag.  To suggest it is somehow not accurate to characterize Oswald as lying simply because he was not directly asked "did you carry a bag as described by Frazier" is ludicrous and dishonest.  But that is the typical weak sauce stuff of the likes of Dishonest John.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 04, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
There is a clear and obvious distinction in Frazier's testimony between the long bag that he saw Oswald carry that morning and the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried. If there were any doubt on this point, Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day and that the longer bag contained curtain rods (explaining the "long" bag).  Thus, Oswald's subsequent claim that he carried only a lunch sack is a direct denial of Frazier's claim that he had a longer bag.  In fact it is the only implication that can be drawn unless Frazier is lying.  But CTers insist Oswald was carrying a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  Thus, Oswald must be lying in that context when he insists he had his lunch.  It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.
Mr. BALL - Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a container?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could buy, sandwich bag, sack.


Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods,"
and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.


Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 07:35:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bag being described by Frazier is not a lunch sack.

...and you know this how?

Quote
To suggest it is somehow not accurate to characterize Oswald as lying simply because he was not directly asked "did you carry a bag as described by Frazier" is ludicrous and dishonest.

What's ludicrous and dishonest is you claiming that "Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier" when it is not true.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 07:43:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a clear and obvious distinction in Frazier's testimony between the long bag that he saw Oswald carry that morning and the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried has any bearing on what he carried on 11/22?

Quote
If there were any doubt on this point, Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day and that the longer bag contained curtain rods (explaining the "long" bag).

So your evidence that Oswald is lying is that you prefer Frazier's account.

Quote
  Thus, Oswald's subsequent claim that he carried only a lunch sack is a direct denial of Frazier's claim that he had a longer bag.

BS.  Are you suggesting that a lunch somehow cannot be carried in a longer bag?  perhaps along with some curtain rods?  Do you think it's just a coincidence that Frazier formerly worked at a job that involved curtain rods?  Does the curtain rod story have any corroboration whatsoever?

Quote
  In fact it is the only implication that can be drawn unless Frazier is lying.

Logical fallacy.  False dichotomy.  As Oswald reportedly said, Frazier could have been thinking of some other day.  Or it's possible Oswald was lying to Frazier, but that doesn't somehow prove he had a rifle that wouldn't actually fit in the bag, in the bag.

Quote
  But CTers insist Oswald was carrying a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  Thus, Oswald must be lying in that context when he insists he had his lunch.  It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

You draw a lot of conclusions that aren't justified by the evidence.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 04, 2019, 07:46:21 PM
Wouldn't someone have to be a complete dumbass that can't tell the difference between holding an 8 ounce pack of curtain rods and a 10 lb package containing a rifle? (https://bibleforums.org/images/aux-s/9crazy.gif)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 08:24:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't be for real.  Alan made specific reference to Oswald being seen by Frazier carrying a bag into the TSBD.  Frazier estimated that bag as being over two feet long!  Thus, the obvious implication is that he saw Oswald carrying a "long bag" into the TSBD.  Good grief.  Even a fringe kook should be able to piece that together.

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.  Lies confirmed in every possible manner.


You really are one confused individual?..

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.

How can Oswald deny carrying any bag of "that size" if he isn't told what size it is?

And some more confused reasoning;

He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.   

So, you believe in the size estimate Frazier gave when it comes to Oswald saying merely he brought a lunch sack, but you dismiss Frazier's estimate when to comes to it having to be big enough to conceal a broken down rifle.... Wow!

Lies confirmed in every possible manner.

Only if you cherry pick the evidence to come up with a strawman argument to lead you to a foregone conclusion. You truly are some piece of work.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 04, 2019, 08:37:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't be for real.  Alan made specific reference to Oswald being seen by Frazier carrying a bag into the TSBD.  Frazier estimated that bag as being over two feet long!  Thus, the obvious implication is that he saw Oswald carrying a "long bag" into the TSBD.  Good grief.  Even a fringe kook should be able to piece that together.

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.  Lies confirmed in every possible manner.

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.

Lee said that he didn't recall the exact size of the sack he carried....He said it contained his lunch and "You can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch"


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 08:53:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Progress!  And just when intelligent people had cause to doubt it was possible.  So we can discount the claim that Oswald had no long bag in his possession when he entered the TSBD.  Hooray!  Glad you won't be citing that again.  Oswald has a long a bag when he enters the TSBD.  Check.  Now it boils down to the evidence.  On your side you have an estimate of Frazier of the bag's length.  Basically a guess as to the length of an object that he himself notes he barely had cause to notice. 

On the other side, we have such a bag that has Oswald's prints on it.  That bag exists and can be measured.  We don't have to guess or estimate its size.  It is the only such bag matching the general description.  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?  It is an important question that sheds considerable light on the contents of a bag.  People lie when it is in their own self-interest and certainly not when it is contrary to their self interest.  But here you would have us believe Oswald lies about carrying a long bag along Frazier's estimate when it would have assisted him considerably if it did not contain any incriminatory evidence.  Why again?  Because the bag he carried contained the rifle!  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.  He got it wrong by a few inches in that scenario and everything else falls into place.  In your wild fantasy alternative scenario, all manner of unresolved and improbable events would have to be reconciled or explained.  Where did the longer bag come from, what happened to the shorter bag, how did Oswald's prints get on the longer bag, why did Oswald lie... none of which any CTer can provide any explanation much less any plausible explanation.

Calm down, Mr Smith. You're letting your emotions get the better of you!  :D

Now! What, in your understanding, is my 'wild fantasy alternative scenario'?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2019, 09:24:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The "I didn't pay much attention" claim came later. On Friday evening he was adamant. Only later did he become more cautious. Besides, the fact that he didn't pay much attention doesn't automatically mean that he was wrong.
>>> What matters is that he didn't pay much attention, not at what juncture that became known to investigators

>>> You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him.

Even if true, you think this was a consideration on Frazier's mind hours after the murder, when Oswald was still alive in custody and there was no trace of the WC?
>>> I have no idea what any witness had in mind. I can only put myself in any given scene and think about I would do in such a circumstance. Buell said he was threatened physically in that interview. That may have xxxxxx him off enough to reconsider his options.

He saw Oswald put the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Do you foolishly think he saw that from behind? Did Frazier have X-ray vision, perhaps?
>>> It seems that Oswald held it in the palm of his hand alright. But Buell agreed with Bug that it could have been held in front.

Stop rambling and just show us all where Randle ever said that the bag " looked long enough to contain a rifle." Go on then, we're waiting!
>>>
First Lennie Mae Randle statement on bag length
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/randle.txt

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.

(...)

Are you on medication? You are using arguments you don't believe in and you think others do that as well? Really?
>>> 'Using' in what sense

Already destroyed by John Iacoletti
>>>  ::) Great; your fellow gaslighter-in-arms

LOL

PS: Is pointing out that Buell was, arguably, in potentially dire circumstances just considered to be 'rambling' by you?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 09:35:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

>>> I have no idea what any witness had in mind. I can only put myself in any given scene and think about I would do in such a circumstance. Buell said he was threatened physically in that interview. That may have xxxxxx him off enough to reconsider his options.


 Thumb1:

(Just so long as one isn't... selective in one's application of this important insight!)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2019, 10:06:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thumb1:

(Just so long as one isn't... selective in one's application of this important insight!)

I personally think Buell was honest in what he thinks he saw
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The "I didn't pay much attention" claim came later. On Friday evening he was adamant. Only later did he become more cautious. Besides, the fact that he didn't pay much attention doesn't automatically mean that he was wrong.
>>> What matters is that he didn't pay much attention, not at what juncture that became known to investigators

Or he just said that he wasn't paying much attention to give himself some breathing space.

Quote
>>> You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him.

Even if true, you think this was a consideration on Frazier's mind hours after the murder, when Oswald was still alive in custody and there was no trace of the WC?
>>> I have no idea what any witness had in mind. I can only put myself in any given scene and think about I would do in such a circumstance. Buell said he was threatened physically in that interview. That may have xxxxxx him off enough to reconsider his options.

Sure.. reconsider as in using the "I wasn't paying much attention" option

Quote
He saw Oswald put the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Do you foolishly think he saw that from behind? Did Frazier have X-ray vision, perhaps?
>>> It seems that Oswald held it in the palm of his hand alright. But Buell agreed with Bug that it could have been held in front.


It seems? What do you mean, "it seems"? Frazier clearly saw the package in the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit!

Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

But Buell agreed with Bug that it could have been held in front.

Being the honest man that he is, he just answered Bug's loaded question truthfully. Not seeing the package stick out over Oswald's could indeed mean, in theory at least, that he was holding it in front. However, anybody who ever tried to do it the way Bug suggested will soon find out that it is physically impossible to carry a rifle that way, without the support of the other arm.

Quote
Stop rambling and just show us all where Randle ever said that the bag " looked long enough to contain a rifle." Go on then, we're waiting!
>>>
First Lennie Mae Randle statement on bag length
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/randle.txt

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.

(...)


That the Bookhout FD 302 report, which Randle never saw or signed. She has contradicted that report in every other official statement she made. And even in that report she did not say that  the bag " looked long enough to contain a rifle.". You are making stuff up again!

Quote
Are you on medication? You are using arguments you don't believe in and you think others do that as well? Really?
>>> 'Using' in what sense


Yep, you must me on meds.

Quote

Already destroyed by John Iacoletti
>>>  ::) Great; your fellow gaslighter-in-arms

LOL

Nah, John is just another person you can not fool with your usual crap

Quote

PS: Is pointing out that Buell was, arguably, in potentially dire circumstances just considered to be 'rambling' by you?

No, but most of your other stuff is.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 10:24:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I personally think Buell was honest in what he thinks he saw

You just don't think he's right and/or telling the truth, right?

After all, he needed to get out of those dire circumstances, right?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 10:47:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Calm down, Mr Smith. You're letting your emotions get the better of you!  :D

Now! What, in your understanding, is my 'wild fantasy alternative scenario'?

Alan, meet Strawman ?Smith?.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 10:53:31 PM
Still waiting for Chapman?s evidence that Randle said the bag ?looked long enough to contain a rifle?.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2019, 10:58:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Still waiting for Chapman?s evidence that Randle said the bag ?looked long enough to contain a rifle?.

Might be better to start waiting for the first martian to land on our planet?. Might be more realistic.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Michael Walton on March 04, 2019, 11:04:50 PM
I thought Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit for his lunch that day?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 05, 2019, 12:14:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wouldn't someone have to be a complete dumbass that can't tell the difference between holding an 8 ounce pack of curtain rods and a 10 lb package containing a rifle? (https://bibleforums.org/images/aux-s/9crazy.gif)
Well?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 05, 2019, 01:52:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?

The number of bags that were dusted for prints in the TSBD was? Who did the dusting? When was the dusting performed?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:27:42 AM
Theory!

a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning

b) Mr Oswald did tell Mr Frazier it contained curtain rods

c) What was in the bag was not a rifle.

d) What was in the bag was two types of item.

 ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 05, 2019, 02:07:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Theory!

a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning

b) Mr Oswald did tell Mr Frazier it contained curtain rods

c) What was in the bag was not a rifle.

d) What was in the bag was two types of item.

 ???

This is simple:

Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.  It is impossible to reconcile the statements and descriptions as Dishonest John pathetically tries.  Frazier clearly and directly, with Oswald's confirmation, rules out that Oswald carried his lunch that morning.  Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack.  It's over two feet long!  If there were even a scintilla of doubt, we also have Oswald's confirmation to Frazier that he is not carrying his lunch in the bag.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Thus, who is lying and why?  What incentive does Frazier, a dumb teenager, have to lie about whether Oswald carried his lunch or a long bag that morning?  None.  What incentive does Oswald have to lie about whether he carried a long bag?  If it contained something exculpatory - like curtain rods - he has every incentive to tell the truth and admit that he did.  If it contains something incriminating - like  a rifle - he has every incentive to lie.  What did he do?  He lied.  This is not rocket science unless you are dishonest - like Crooked John or biased.   The facts and circumstances are crystal clear.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 02:55:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack.  It's over two feet long!

Can't you read, Mr Smith? I explicitly listed as Proposition #1:

"a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning"

In normal usage, the underlining of a word serves the purpose of emphasis. ::)

I am theorising----and I use that word advisedly, because (unlike you, evidently) I was not present for these events on 11/22/63----that the bag was indeed long (yes: "over two feet long") and that it did not contain a dissassembled rifle.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 05, 2019, 03:26:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can't you read, Mr Smith? I explicitly listed as Proposition #1:

"a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning"

In normal usage, the underlining of a word serves the purpose of emphasis. ::)

I am theorising----and I use that word advisedly, because (unlike you, evidently) I was not present for these events on 11/22/63----that the bag was indeed long (yes: "over two feet long") and that it did not contain a dissassembled rifle.

Again, you don't have to be present at a historical event to understand from the facts what occurred.  We would still be questioning who won the battle of Gettysburg if that were the case.  The question of the bag derives from Crooked John who suggests the bag Frazier described could have been the same lunch bag that Oswald indicated he carried.  And his ludicrious claim that it is not accurate to characterize Oswald as denying he carried a bag as described by Frazier.  I merely pointed out - and you seem to agree - that Frazier's bag and Oswald's lunch bag can't be the same bag.  Thus, the relevant point for you (which seemed clear) is that one or the other is lying about the bag.  If Oswald is lying, that lends itself to the question of why.  And the answer is obvious.  No one lies to get themselves in further difficulties by, for example, denying that they had a bag that contained exculpatory evidence like curtain rods.  Oswald lied because the bag had something in it that he did not want connected to him.  And it doesn't take a time machine to understand what.   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 03:38:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I merely pointed out - and you seem to agree - that Frazier's bag and Oswald's lunch bag can't be the same bag.

 Thumb1:

Quote
Thus, the relevant point for you (which seemed clear) is that one or the other is lying about the bag.

There is a third possibility. Let's see if you can think of it yourself!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 04:29:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is simple:

Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.  It is impossible to reconcile the statements and descriptions as Dishonest John pathetically tries.  Frazier clearly and directly, with Oswald's confirmation, rules out that Oswald carried his lunch that morning.  Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack.  It's over two feet long!  If there were even a scintilla of doubt, we also have Oswald's confirmation to Frazier that he is not carrying his lunch in the bag.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Thus, who is lying and why?  What incentive does Frazier, a dumb teenager, have to lie about whether Oswald carried his lunch or a long bag that morning?  None.  What incentive does Oswald have to lie about whether he carried a long bag?  If it contained something exculpatory - like curtain rods - he has every incentive to tell the truth and admit that he did.  If it contains something incriminating - like  a rifle - he has every incentive to lie.  What did he do?  He lied.  This is not rocket science unless you are dishonest - like Crooked John or biased.   The facts and circumstances are crystal clear.

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.

Completely agree....  One of the two is not being truthful......  And I believe that person is Wes Frazier.    But this does not mean that Frazier had any malicious intent.

In some ways he also was / is a victim of the corrupt DPD.   They had told him that Lee Oswald had told them that yes he had carried a long sack that morning and the sack contained curtain rods, but in reality Lee had said nothing of the kind.  He told them he carried his lunch in a bag .... 
The cops had told Frazier that Oswald had carried the rifle in Fraziers car that morning and they could charge him with being an accessory to murder. They said that Lee had said that carried curtain rods in a long sack ....  Frazier realized that if he supported the curtain rod story he could not be charged with being an accessory. so he agreed that Lee had told him that the long sack contained curtain rods.   

Then to insure that Frazier wouldn't recant the story the forced him to take a sham lie detector test.... And they centered the subject of the test, on the paper sack.

When they were done they said that he'd passed with flying colors , and they were convinced that he was telling the truth.  In reality the polygraph was totally worthless because a polygraph cannot be administered to a person who is under stress.   

To this very day Frazier believes that the polygraph verified and supported the tale that he's been given by the DPD.     
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 05, 2019, 04:37:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do any of these points relate to whether CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

Oswald's unusual behavior on 21/22 November before and after the shootings is evidence as to his guilt. These are just examples of that unusual behavior. Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139 the connection is obvious. Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142. It is really quite simple, JohnI. If you were really just seeking the truth then this would be obvious.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142.

Such multifaceted silliness in one sentence!  :D

Let's see if we can tweak it towards the Land of Logic:

Even if BWF did not see any bag other than CE-142, that does not mean that Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 04:43:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They had told him that Lee Oswald had told them that yes he had carried a long sack that morning and the sack contained curtain rods [...] He told them he carried his lunch in a bag

Maybe he told them both of these things!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 05, 2019, 04:52:53 PM

Quote
How many times has this been discussed and you still don't get it.  Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not
.

And you rely on Jack Dougherty as a source?

 "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today.".....11/23 statement to FBI

Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way...??.

This is the guy who goes from a vaguely seeing Oswald to being definite that Oswald had nothing in his hands. Very convincing witness  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 05:18:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe he told them both of these things!

 Thumb1:

No....I don't believe so..... I believe that Lee told them that he carried his lunch in the sack....Just as Fritz said he he did.... Because Fritz went on to elaborate on the sack ... Fritz said that he asked Lee about the size of the sack and Lee said that he didn't recall exactly....He said that it might have been bigger than necessary to contain his sandwich and fruit because "you can't always find a sack that is just the right size"
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 05:30:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald's unusual behavior on 21/22 November before and after the shootings is evidence as to his guilt. These are just examples of that unusual behavior. Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139 the connection is obvious. Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142. It is really quite simple, JohnI. If you were really just seeking the truth then this would be obvious.

Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139

When you say it like that, you really, really, need to back up that wacky claim by some hard evidence.


Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142. It is really quite simple, 

Simple or not, Frazier has denied all his life and from day 1 that CE-142 is the bag he saw Oswald carry.

But let me guess, he, who actually was there and saw the bag, was wrong and you, who wasn't there and never saw the bag, are right, correct? 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:01:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frazier has denied all his life and from day 1 that CE-142 is the bag he saw Oswald carry.

I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 06:05:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 Thumb1:

Actually, Mr. Ford, Frazier was shown CE-142 (and it's duplicate substitute) over and over again and has always denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Obviously, if it wasn't CE-142 then it must have been another bag that Frazier saw and that one did not have the same length as CE-142.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:07:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, Mr. Ford, Frazier was shown CE-142 (and it's duplicate substitute) over and over again and has always denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Obviously, if it wasn't CE-142 then it must have been another bag that Frazier saw and that one did not have the same length as CE-142.

Can you give us a citation where Mr Frazier states categorically that CE-142 was not the bag he saw---without the sole reason for this being length?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:09:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thumb1:

There is a third possibility. Let's see if you can think of it yourself!  Thumb1:

Mr Smith must be waiting for John and Jean to get back to his emails!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 06:11:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure that's quite correct, Mr Weidmann.

Mr Frazier has denied from day 1 that CE-142 is the same length as the bag he saw Mr Oswald carry!

 Thumb1:

I'm sure Martin will set you straight .... But  Buell Frazier is on record as saying CE 142 is NOT the bag that Lee carried that morning.

Frazier specifically pointed out that CE 142 was constructed fro HEAVY WEIGHT brown paper like that used to wrap books at the TSBD, while the bag that Lee Carried was constructed of FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT paper....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:32:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sure Martin will set you straight .... But  Buell Frazier is on record as saying CE 142 is NOT the bag that Lee carried that morning.

Frazier specifically pointed out that CE 142 was constructed fro HEAVY WEIGHT brown paper like that used to wrap books at the TSBD, while the bag that Lee Carried was constructed of FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT paper....

Citation, please!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 07:18:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you give us a citation where Mr Frazier states categorically that CE-142 was not the bag he saw---without the sole reason for this being length?

 Thumb1:

Hi Alan,

I copy/pasted this from the OP of another thread; https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html

At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.

According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the ?crickly brown paper sack? Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as ?paper gun case? because ?the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.

A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......

So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word ?bag? he crossed it out and replaced it with ?sack?. For some reason that distinction was important to him.

And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that ?the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and ?a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 07:44:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Alan,

I copy/pasted this from the OP of another thread; https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html

At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.

According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the ?crickly brown paper sack? Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as ?paper gun case? because ?the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.

A memo from FBI agent James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;

"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"

The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......

So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word ?bag? he crossed it out and replaced it with ?sack?. For some reason that distinction was important to him.

And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that ?the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and ?a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.

Thank you for this very ample reply, Mr Weidman, it's appreciated!  Thumb1:

Now!

It may well be that Mr Frazier felt the paper was more "crinkly", and that his impression (based on casual sighting of the bag) was correct.
-------------------I.e. it may well be that CE-142 is not the bag he saw Mr Oswald bring to work that morning.

However! There is also this in the Odum-McNeely report of 2 Dec which you cite:

[H]e now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963

Not a direct quote from Mr Frazier, I'll readily grant you! But...

During his Warren Commission testimony, Mr Frazier is shown an untreated (i.e. non-discolored) part of CE-142:

Mr. BALL - Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.


I don't think we can rule out Mr Frazier's having seen Mr Oswald with CE-142 that morning-----at least not until we have at least tried to account for the serious discrepancy in described length between it and the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle described.

Now! I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 08:09:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for this very ample reply, Mr Weidman, it's appreciated!  Thumb1:

Now!

It may well be that Mr Frazier felt the paper was more "crinkly", and that his impression (based on casual sighting of the bag) was correct.
-------------------I.e. it may well be that CE-142 is not the bag he saw Mr Oswald bring to work that morning.

However! There is also this in the Odum-McNeely report of 2 Dec which you cite:

[H]e now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963

Not a direct quote from Mr Frazier, I'll readily grant you! But...

During his Warren Commission testimony, Mr Frazier is shown an untreated (i.e. non-discolored) part of CE-142:

Mr. BALL - Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.


I don't think we can rule out Mr Frazier's having seen Mr Oswald with CE-142 that morning-----at least not until we have at least tried to account for the serious discrepancy in described length between it and the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle described.

Now! I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

I am not sure I follow the last part of your post. How could CE-142 being the bag Oswald carried (if that's what happened) be a clue to how he was framed?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:12:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure I follow the last part of your post. How could CE-142 being the bag Oswald carried (if that's what happened) be a clue to how he was framed?

Because it is a bag
--------------large enough to contain curtain rods
and
--------------large enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 08:17:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Citation, please!  Thumb1:

I can't put my finger on it at the moment ....  Perhaps it's in Fraziers testimony...  I'm certain that Frazier was quoted as saying that the bag they displayed to him while he was in the polygraph room was NOT the bag that he saw Lee carry that morning...and he went on to say that not only was the bag much bigger than Lee's sack....It was constructed from heavy weight paper while Lee's sack was constructed from flimsy light weight paper.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:21:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can't put my finger on it at the moment ....  Perhaps it's in Fraziers testimony...  I'm certain that Frazier was quoted as saying that the bag they displayed to him while he was in the polygraph room was NOT the bag that he saw Lee carry that morning...and he went on to say that not only was the bag much bigger than Lee's sack....It was constructed from heavy weight paper while Lee's sack was constructed from flimsy light weight paper.

See my reply to Mr Weidmann above!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 08:29:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because it is a bag
--------------large enough to contain curtain rods
and
--------------large enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano!

 Thumb1:

Sorry, still don't follow.

Btw I don't think there was a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried simply because I seriously doubt, for a number of reasons, there actually was a rifle belonging to Oswald stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

Also, Oswald is supposed to have carried that rifle on public transport several times (the Walker shooting and his trip to New Orleans). He must have used something to conceal the weapon on those occassions. So, why would he have to make a paper bag now when an inconspicuous duffel bag would have sufficed? It makes no sense to me at all, that Oswald would suddenly feel the need to make a paper bag at the TSBD and risk being seen when other, far easier, alternatives would have been available to him.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:31:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, still don't follow.

Btw I don't think there was a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried [...]

Neither do I---the bag seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle was too short, but it was too short by a very interesting number of inches!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 08:42:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
See my reply to Mr Weidmann above!  Thumb1:

 I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

HUH??.... I'm spinning my wheels trying to get traction, and move forward.   What the hell are you talkin about?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 09:00:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

HUH??.... I'm spinning my wheels trying to get traction, and move forward.   What the hell are you talkin about?

It's all perfectly simple, Mr Cakebread, but we need to put the pieces together methodically!  Thumb1:

Now!

Question! How long did Mr Frazier estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in the 2 Dec interview report of Agents Odum & McNeely:

(https://i.imgur.com/Zpkrhbm.jpg)

27 inches.

Question! How long did Ms Randle estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in Ms Randle's WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
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.


27 inches.

That number, my friends, is no random number. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it tells us what was in the bag Mr Oswald carried that morning.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2019, 09:25:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's all perfectly simple, Mr Cakebread, but we need to put the pieces together methodically!  Thumb1:

Now!

Question! How long did Mr Frazier estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in the 2 Dec interview report of Agents Odum & McNeely:

(https://i.imgur.com/Zpkrhbm.jpg)

27 inches.

Question! How long did Ms Randle estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in Ms Randle's WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
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.


27 inches.

That number, my friends, is no random number. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it tells us what was in the bag Mr Oswald carried that morning.

 Thumb1:

Alan, I would really appreciate it if you stopped talking in riddles.

First of all, I still have no idea how any of this can even remotely be considered a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Secondly, you seem to focus on the estimates of Frazier and Randle, when those estimates IMO are the weakest part of the argument. Sure, they indicate that the bag was shorter than CE-142 and could not have contained a broken down rifle, but - as the LNs frequently point out - estimates can be wrong.

A far better way - again IMO - to determine the size of the bag, is for example Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag; i.e. in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's no estimate, it's an observation and one that can conclusively show that the bag could not have been large enough to conceal a rifle, simply because Oswald's arms were not long enough for that. The same goes, to a lesser extend, for the FBI measurement of the car back seat and Randle's description of how Oswald carried the bag in Irving when she saw him. None of it, however, gives us a clue to how Oswald was framed.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 09:50:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, I would really appreciate it if you stopped talking in riddles.

First of all, I still have no idea how any of this would can even remotely be considered a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Secondly, you seem to focus on the estimates of Frazier and Randle, when those estimates IMO are the weakest part of the argument. Sure, they indicate that the bag was shorter than CE-142 and could not have contained a broken down rifle, but - as the LNs frequently point out - estimates can be wrong.

A far better way - again IMO - to determine the size of the bag, is for example Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag; i.e. in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's no estimate, it's an observation and one that can conclusively show that the bag could not have been large enough to conceal a rifle, simply because Oswald's arms were not long enough for that. The same goes, to a lesser extend, for the FBI measurement of the car back seat and Randle's description of how Oswald carried the bag in Irving when she saw him. None of it, however, gives us a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Oh, but it does, Mr Weidmann!

In order to go down as the man who brought the rifle into the Depository building, Mr Oswald had to be seen bringing a long bag into the building.

In order to be seen bringing a long bag into the building, he had to be manipulated into bringing a long bag into the building.

Yes?

Well!

If we take the entirely reasonable step of listening to Mr Frazier and Ms Randle when they give us their length estimate, we find ourselves considering a manipulation of Mr Oswald that required a bag
------------long enough to contain something some 27 inches long (which Mr Oswald did bring into the building in the bag)
and
------------long enough to contain a dissassembled rifle (which Mr Oswald did not bring into the building in the bag)!

Now!

Question! What was some 27 inches long?

Answer! The curtain rods in Ms Ruth Paine's garage!

Mr. JENNER. They are the sliding or extension type, one fitting into the other when closed entirely, measuring from upended tip to upended tip they are----
Agent HOWLETT. The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER. And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT. It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.


2 feet 3 1/2 inches, a.k.a....

27.5 inches!  ???

Just think about this.......

-----------Mr Frazier and Ms Randle are not under suspicion of having broken into Ms Paine's garage and measured her curtain rods!  :D
-----------Yet they somehow managed to come up with a size estimate for the bag that was uncannily close to the length of the objects which Mr Frazier says Mr Oswald told him were in that bag!

No coincidence, Mr Weidmann, no coincidence!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just think about this.......

-----------Mr Frazier and Ms Randle are not under suspicion of having broken into Ms Paine's garage and measured her curtain rods!  :D
-----------Yet they somehow managed to come up with a size estimate for the bag that was uncannily close to the length of the objects which Mr Frazier says Mr Oswald told him were in that bag!

No coincidence, Mr Weidmann, no coincidence!

 Thumb1:

Now!

As to what Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald carrying, it was Ms Randle who was careful to differentiate the bag's length when at full length and its length when some of it was folded down:

Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.

Spot on, Ms Randle---what you saw that morning was a bag long enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano but folded down so as to contain 27.5-inch curtain rods!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2019, 11:30:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is simple:

Everything is "simple" when you take speculation and pretend that is it fact.

Quote
Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.

One of them is wrong (or quoted incorrectly), not necessarily lying.  That's your first mistake.

Then you go completely off the rails in concluding that therefore there must have been a rifle in that bag.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2019, 11:33:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one lies to get themselves in further difficulties by, for example, denying that they had a bag that contained exculpatory evidence like curtain rods.

Wrong again, "Richard".  Some people (like Walt and yourself) pathologically lie, because you're incapable of separating fact from fiction.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2019, 11:37:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald's unusual behavior on 21/22 November before and after the shootings is evidence as to his guilt.

No matter how Oswald had behaved, you would say that.  Confirmation bias is not evidence.

Quote
These are just examples of that unusual behavior. Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139 the connection is obvious. Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142.

...and you know that Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning, how?

Quote
It is really quite simple, JohnI. If you were really just seeking the truth then this would be obvious.

LOL.  "If you were really seeking the truth, you would just agree with my speculations".
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 11:37:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

As to what Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald carrying, it was Ms Randle who was careful to differentiate the bag's length when at full length and its length when some of it was folded down:

Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.

Spot on, Ms Randle---what you saw that morning was a bag long enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano but folded down so as to contain 27.5-inch curtain rods!  Thumb1:

Friends, I invite you to take a long careful look at the document below.

If the uncanny similarity between the 27-inch estimate of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle and the 27.5-inch length of two curtain rods found in Mrs Paine's garage constitutes the first smoking gun here, then this document constitutes the second!

(https://i.imgur.com/z1czEZS.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2019, 11:39:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is the guy who goes from a vaguely seeing Oswald to being definite that Oswald had nothing in his hands. Very convincing witness  ::)

And yet, you're apparently convinced by the equally wacky Brennan, Markham, Bledsoe, and Roberts.

Be honest, you are convinced by whoever supports your narrative.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 05, 2019, 11:43:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everything is "simple" when you take speculation and pretend that is it fact.

One of them is wrong (or quoted incorrectly), not necessarily lying.  That's your first mistake.

Then you go completely off the rails is in concluding that  therefore there must have been a rifle in that bag.

Time after time, I ignore the "may have"  or "I think, (suspect) (believe) threads so numerous here, that a middle
school student could predict are paths to nowhere. They are merely lounges for effortless chit-chat.
I try to present the lessons, again and again, that this is not simple, not the stuff for the intentionally, blissfully
unaware who do not know what they are unaware of yet do not indicate the slightest concern that unawareness
impairs analysis.

Today's example. Someone wiser than I remarked that those close to LHO silently shrank into the background after 12:30 on
friday while the nuts blossomed, loudly.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,670.msg46631.html#msg46631
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 12:40:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends, I invite you to take a long careful look at the document below.

If the uncanny similarity between the 27-inch estimate of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle and the 27.5-inch length of two curtain rods found in Mrs Paine's garage constitutes the first smoking gun here, then this document constitutes the second!

(https://i.imgur.com/z1czEZS.jpg)

Now!

Can someone kindly explain these elements to me in a way that makes sense?

(https://i.imgur.com/lLT96q5.gif)

Thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 06, 2019, 01:11:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends, I invite you to take a long careful look at the document below.

If the uncanny similarity between the 27-inch estimate of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle and the 27.5-inch length of two curtain rods found in Mrs Paine's garage constitutes the first smoking gun here, then this document constitutes the second!

(https://i.imgur.com/z1czEZS.jpg)

Not sure where you got the measurement of these rods to be 27.5".
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 02:00:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald's unusual behavior on 21/22 November before and after the shootings is evidence as to his guilt. These are just examples of that unusual behavior. Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139 the connection is obvious. Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142. It is really quite simple, JohnI. If you were really just seeking the truth then this would be obvious.

You have already decided what's what. But none of that proves anything in a scenario where Oswald is truly innocent. If he's truly guilty, then people can review all of these uncommon Oswald actions and easily see a pattern.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 02:02:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not sure where you got the measurement of these rods to be 27.5".

For now, Mr Crow, I am treating these as separate phenomena:

a) 2 curtain rods measured in the Paine garage for the WC by Agent Howlett: each 27.5 inches long
b) 2 curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints by Lieutenant J. C. Day: negative.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 02:17:31 AM
Now!

Compare and contrast, if you will...

(https://i.imgur.com/DBary KampoO26.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/aEKJHmJ.jpg)

For ease of cross-reference!:

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)

 ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 06, 2019, 02:51:45 AM
There was an aunt or a mother in law that lived with Frazier and Randle who also saw Oswald that morning. Does anyone recall her name?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 12:01:49 PM
Now!

There must be a logical answer to the question:

Why would 2 curtain rods (each made up of 2 pieces) need to be tested to see if Mr Oswald's fingerprints were on them?

(https://i.imgur.com/lLT96q5.gif)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
Friends! Consider the following:

Testimony Of Ruth Hyde Paine Resumed
The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 7:30 p.m., on March 23, 1964, at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex., home of deponent by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

During this taking of testimony, two curtain rods, each measuring 27.5 inches when unextended, were inspected by Agent Howlett in the Paine garage. The Paines had both testified that these rods had lain undisturbed at the back of the garage since a time well before 11/22/63. Ms Paine testified that no rods had been noticed missing after the JFK assassination.

Now for a real kicker!

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)


Yep! March 15.

Sequence of events:

1. March 15: Agent Howlett submits 2 curtain rods to Lieutenant L. C. Day for fingerprinting (to check for a match with Oswald's prints)

2. March 19: Ruth Paine testifies in Washington that 2 curtain rods have remained undisturbed in her garage since months before the assassination; she oh-so-obligingly agrees to allow the WC to inspect these 2 rods in situ when they visit her home in Irving in a week's time

3. March 23: Agent Howlett inspects 2 curtain rods in the Paine residence which have supposedly lain there undisturbed for months

3. March 24: Lieutenant L. C. Day releases back to Agent Howlett the 2 curtain rods he had received from him on March 15.

I have consulted a calendar of March 1964, friends, and guess what?

March 15 preceded March 23!  ???

The glaring timeline anomaly leads to an inescapable conclusion:

The 2 curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant Day on March 15 were tested for Oswald's fingerprints
-------------not because they came from the Paine garage (impossible according to the WC's own timeline [March 15 preceded March 23!], and absurd on the face of it [Mr Oswald's fingerprints on curtain rods never even taken from the Paine household would be an irrelevance to the case])
-------------but because they had been found somewhere other than in the Paine garage.

The on-the-record scene in the Paine garage on March 23, in short, was a staged affair:
-------------The 2 curtain rods which Agent Howlett inspected in situ had been removed from that garage by Mr Oswald on the night of Thursday 11/22 and brought to the Depository building the next morning in a large light-brown paper bag
-------------These 2 curtain rods had been found---somewhere other than in the Paine garage---after the assassination
-------------These 2 curtain rods had been surreptitiously restored to the Paine garage in time for the on-the-record 'inspection' of March 23.

A squalid little pantomime----all to bury the simple but crucial fact that Mr Oswald had brought not a dissassembled rifle but curtain rods measuring 27.5 inches into the Depository on the morning of the assassination!

But how did they get the curtain rods out of the DPD crime unit so that they could be used in the staged inspection chez Paine?

I believe the discrepancies between these two versions we have of the official release form may hold the answer!:

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)

As a taster, ask yourself the question:

How can Lieutenant Day have released the curtain rods twice
-----------first to Agent Howlett on March 23
-----------second to A. N. Other on March 26?

 ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 02:37:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

There must be a logical answer to the question:

Why would 2 curtain rods (each made up of 2 pieces) need to be tested to see if Mr Oswald's fingerprints were on them?

(https://i.imgur.com/lLT96q5.gif)

These curtain rods were obviously in the possession of the DPD, when they released them to Howett 3/24 /64  ...  Howlett had brought them to the DPD on 3 /15/64 

Where did the snake Howlett get the curtain rods..... ( recall that Howlett was the snake who portrayed "Lee Oswald" in the phony "re-enactment" of the Lee's theorized movements in the TSBD after the shooting....)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 02:41:55 PM
Friends, let us return to CE-142-------the bag purportedly found up in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor after the assassination!

Mr Oswald is somehow manipulated into bringing 2 curtain rods measuring 27.5 inches into work that morning.

Why? In order that he be seen having come into work with a bulky package. He is being set up not as a triggerman but as the deliverer of a rifle to the building.

For the plan to work, the bulky package must
--------------be handled by Mr Oswald so as to later come back positive from the fingerprinting lab
--------------be separated from its original contents (curtain rods) at some point between Mr Oswald's arrival for work and the discovery of the bag by law enforcement after the shooting
--------------be long enough, when folded out to its full length, to be credibly said to have contained the Carcano.

Why not give Mr Oswald something to carry in the bag as long as a rifle? Would that not have avoided the headache posed by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's size estimates?

Sure! But that would have risked triggering Mr Oswald's suspicions. Remember: this was the day of the Presidential visit. Big chance he would have smelled a rat.

Now!

All this renders intelligible Mr Oswald's actions immediately after the assassination:
---------------he goes into the small storage room just off the first-floor front lobby to check on the bag with the curtain rods he left there this morning (thanks to Mr Ochus Campbell, we know he was seen in this room)
---------------the bag is gone, but the curtain rods are still there!
---------------he puts 2 + 2 together, and leaves the scene, picks up a pistol in his apartment, etc.

After his arrest, what does he tell Captain Fritz?

EITHER

A) He denies having brought any bulky package to work: he knows he can't prove that the curtain rods were in the long bag, and he has already learned that a Carcano is believed to have vanished from the Paine garage. 'Wesley must be mistaken, he must be thinking about a different day. I only had a fairly large-sized bag with my lunch in it...' etc.

OR

B) He denies having brought the curtain rods to work because he doesn't wish to admit to having helped himself to Mrs Paine's property without her permission

OR

C) He tells Captain Fritz about the curtain rods in the large bag, and about the small lunch bag with an apple and cheese sandwiches which he had also placed in the large bag. Captain Fritz & Co. do what Captain Fritz need to do: they lie about what Mr Oswald said. We know they are going to suppress Mr Oswald's single most important claim in custody: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade". Hardly a stretch that they will also suppress Mr Oswald's second most important claim: 'I brought curtain rods to work this morning'!

Now! Nota bene!

For the basic frame-up plan to work, Mr Oswald must be given a bag that
------------seems about right for carrying curtain rods
------------will later seem just right for having carried the Carcano.

CE-142 would fit the bill nicely, no?  Thumb1:

But more than this:

For the plan to work, Mr Oswald must not be allowed to choose the bag he brings the curtain rods in.

The bag must be tailor-made for the job:
-----------------It must be prepared for, and given to, Mr Oswald.


Who prepared CE-142?

Where was it prepared?

Who gave it to Mr Oswald?



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 02:47:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These curtain rods were obviously in the possession of the DPD, when they released them to Howett 3/24 /64  ...  Howlett had brought them to the DPD on 3 /15/64 

Where did the snake Howlett get the curtain rods..... ( recall that Howlett was the snake who portrayed "Lee Oswald" in the phony "re-enactment" of the Lee's theorized movements in the TSBD after the shooting....)

Good question!

There is only one logical answer to the overwhelming question: "Why were these curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's prints?"

Because they must have been found in a location where a forensic link between them and Mr Oswald would be of significance to the case.

The Paine garage is not such a location.

The Texas School Book Depository is!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 02:50:59 PM
Now!

A cogent objection might be made to the theory I am putting forward:

How did those framing Mr Oswald know for sure in advance that he would make an untypical visit to the Paine home the night before the assassination?

The simple answer is:

They didn't!

And that's where this gets really interesting...

 :-X
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 03:29:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

A cogent objection might be made to the theory I am putting forward:

How did those framing Mr Oswald know for sure in advance that he would make an untypical visit to the Paine home the night before the assassination?

The simple answer is:

They didn't!

And that's where this gets really interesting...

 :-X

How do you know that they wouldn't have known?.....   It appears to me that they knew that Lee would want to spend his last night in the US, with his family,   before fleeing to Cuba after the hoax attempt on JFK.....  And they capitalized on that by attempting to make it appear that Lee had gone to Irving to get the rifle.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 03:47:45 PM
23 March 1964, Paine home, Irving:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you rise and enter the garage and point out in my presence and in the presence of Mr. Howlett where that package is?
(At this point the persons heretofore mentioned entered the garage as stated by Counsel Jenner.)


Pure pantomime!

The 'Mr Howlett' mentioned by Mr Jenner is the selfsame Agent Howlett who----------just 8 days before----------had submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant J. C. Day!

Purpose of the fingerprinting? To check for Mr Oswald's prints!

And now here he is, about to 'inspect'.... 2 curtain rods!

With no mention by him, by anyone, of his concurrent Oswald-oriented investigation into the 'other' 2 curtain rods!

This laughable charade had been nicely set up the previous week in Washington:

Mr. JENNER - While you are doing that, Mrs. Paine, would you be good enough when you return to Irving, Tex., to see if those rods are at hand, and some of our men are going to be in Irving next week. We might come out and take a look at them, and perhaps you might surrender them to us.
Mrs. PAINE - You are perfectly welcome to them.


The curtain rods were indeed 'surrendered', though the more accurate past participle would be: given back----to Agent Howlett, and in turn to Lieutenant Day.

The following day, they would be re-released by Lieutenant Day to Agent Howlett:

(https://i.imgur.com/DBary KampoO26.jpg)

And then---------or so another official release form tells us---------they were, on March 26, somehow re-re-released to a nameless A. N. Other!:

(https://i.imgur.com/aEKJHmJ.jpg)

But is that what this second '3-26-64' official document is really showing us?

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 04:28:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For ease of cross-reference!:

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)

 ???

Very interesting find, Alan!  There's some shenanigans going on here...
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 04:35:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was an aunt or a mother in law that lived with Frazier and Randle who also saw Oswald that morning. Does anyone recall her name?

Their mother, Essie Mae Williams.  She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_150_300.png)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 04:44:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who prepared CE-142?

Where was it prepared?

Who gave it to Mr Oswald?


Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s400/PaperBagPackage.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 05:00:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Very interesting find, Alan!  There's some shenanigans going on here...

Thank you, Mr Iacoletti!  And yes, shenanigans is about the word for it. Thumb1:

It is an extremely curious circumstance.

We have two official forms for the 2 curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

The first (call it CURTAINS #1) has the 'released' date of 3-24-64:

(https://i.imgur.com/86uesSV.jpg)

It is important to note that the elements on this document written in red pen are exactly replicated in the second version (call it CURTAINS #2), which has the 'released' date of 3-26-64:

(https://i.imgur.com/QLBOQlT.jpg)

This tells us that
---------------CURTAINS #1 is the original
---------------CURTAINS #2 contains text added to a photocopy of CURTAINS #1
---------------the photocopy of CURTAINS #1 was made, however, before the following elements had been written in: signature of 'John Joe Howlett' (the 2nd instance of this signature) + '3-24-64' + '750 a[.m.]' + signature of 'J. C. Day'.

This is the only logical way of accounting for the discrepancies.

In other words, CURTAINS #2, a.k.a. Commission Exhibit 1952----------
(https://i.imgur.com/QLBOQlT.jpg)
-----------is not just a photocopy (already obvious), but a photocopy of a deliberately prepared photocopy.

The question then becomes:

What benefit did having ready to hand this photocopied version bring?

Answer: flexibility in checking the 2 curtain rods in and out of the lab.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 05:01:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s400/PaperBagPackage.jpg)

Hmmm... that has always puzzled me...

Thank you for the pointer!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Brent Moldenhauer on March 06, 2019, 05:04:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.

But both BWF and LMR were shown the package supposedly found on the 6th floor and said it wasnt what Oswald carried. Also both suggest they saw it carried in a way impossible had it been the rifle. So there is also a basis for fact that Oswald didnt carry the supposed large package that was forensically examined and showed no signs of gun oil, gunpowder, nitrates, creases or scratches that could connect it with the transportation of a broken down rifle, a rifle the FBI described as "well oiled" in particular.

I dont like to say people are lying and I can agree that people can make errors when trying to recall the length of an item but Frazier observed the package being stuffed under the armpit with the bottom part cupped in his palm. That is not a guess or an estimate but an observation. He then was shown the large package and said it wasnt what Oswald had. Again, that is not a guess but a comparison based on his observations which was corroborated by Randle.

I am very suspicious of that large package any way.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 05:12:25 PM
Now!

I've been variously calling this document a 'release' form or an 'official' form.

Actually, the form itself is rather more informative as to its place in the bigger scheme of things:

(https://i.imgur.com/OTGRQcZ.jpg)

CRIME SCENE SEARCH SECTION.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 07:59:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit for his lunch that day?

Yes, but what type of cheese was it? Notice that all accounts of Oswald's interrogation leave this item out. If it turned out that Oswald named a cheese that was in Mrs. Paine's refrigerator then it would mean that BWF, LMR and even Mrs. Roberts were all in collusion to frame Roger Rabbit., I mean LHO. The plot thickens and the clues that exonerate LHO just keep on piling up.  ;D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:05:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Such multifaceted silliness in one sentence!  :D

Let's see if we can tweak it towards the Land of Logic:

Even if BWF did not see any bag other than CE-142, that does not mean that Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning.

 Thumb1:

I can back up my statement with the testimony of the one who took LHO to work. What you propose has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:07:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe he told them both of these things!

 Thumb1:

Where's the evidence!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 08:10:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can back up my statement with the testimony of the one who took LHO to work. What you propose has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.

And I can back up my theory with close reference to the testimony of the one who took LHO to work.

Your theory, on the other hand, requires you to disregard a key part of that testimony.

So I win on the terms you have just laid down.

Now!

I believe Mr Oswald had 27.5-inch-long curtain rods in the bag he brought.

Prove me wrong using something other than wishful thinking!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:21:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139

When you say it like that, you really, really, need to back up that wacky claim by some hard evidence.


Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142. It is really quite simple, 

Simple or not, Frazier has denied all his life and from day 1 that CE-142 is the bag he saw Oswald carry.

But let me guess, he, who actually was there and saw the bag, was wrong and you, who wasn't there and never saw the bag, are right, correct?

The evidence has been around for public consumption for over 54 years and all that needs to be done is to read the WR, which is my source (along with the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits). BWF has also maintained that he wasn't paying too much attention so his recollection as to the size of the bag can't be expected to be anywhere close to an exact measurement of the bag.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:24:50 PM
Quote
And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

This aught to be good. The sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 08:27:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This aught to be good. The sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Run, Oscar, Run!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:32:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Neither do I---the bag seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle was too short, but it was too short by a very interesting number of inches!

Sylvia Meagher came up with the size of the curtain rods theory years ago. The funny thing is that those curtain rods where still in the Paine garage and were the only ones the Paine's had. So, 50 year theory shut down decades ago.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:39:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, but what type of cheese was it? Notice that all accounts of Oswald's interrogation leave this item out. If it turned out that Oswald named a cheese that was in Mrs. Paine's refrigerator then it would mean that BWF, LMR and even Mrs. Roberts were all in collusion to frame Roger Rabbit., I mean LHO.

Wow, are you taking strawman lessons from "Richard Smith"?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:40:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can back up my statement with the testimony of the one who took LHO to work. What you propose has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.

And apparently ignoring what else he said.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:41:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence has been around for public consumption for over 54 years and all that needs to be done is to read the WR, which is my source (along with the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits).

When your "evidence" is "read the WR", then you have already lost the debate.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:42:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I can back up my theory with close reference to the testimony of the one who took LHO to work.

Your theory, on the other hand, requires you to disregard a key part of that testimony.

So I win on the terms you have just laid down.

Now!

I believe Mr Oswald had 27.5-inch-long curtain rods in the bag he brought.

Prove me wrong using something other than wishful thinking!

Thumb1:

I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:46:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, are you taking strawman lessons from "Richard Smith"?

You could use some lessons in logical thinking from Richard Smith. The guy owns you.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:46:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.

...and your belief that Oswald had a rifle in his bag is not conjecture?

hmmm.......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:48:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You could use some lessons in logical thinking from Richard Smith. The guy owns you.

That really explains a lot about your ability to reason.   :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:49:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And apparently ignoring what else he said.

You're placing your trust on the least precise piece of BWF testimony.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When your "evidence" is "read the WR", then you have already lost the debate.

Congratulations, JohnI. You'll be receiving a whoopee cushion in the mail.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 08:56:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...and your belief that Oswald had a rifle in his bag is not conjecture?

hmmm.......

It's not a belief. You're confusing me with CTer MO. The circumstantial evidence that LHO brought C2766 inside CE-142 is so convincing that it passes the beyond all doubt test.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:58:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're placing your trust on the least precise piece of BWF testimony.

Really?  One end in his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand is pretty damn precise.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:00:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not a belief. You're confusing me with CTer MO. The circumstantial evidence that LHO brought C2766 inside CE-142 is so convincing that it passes the beyond all doubt test.

I'm starting to understand your standards.   Pure conjecture is "convincing circumstantial evidence" when you do it and doesn't have any burden of proof.  How convenient.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 09:06:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And yet, you're apparently convinced by the equally wacky Brennan, Markham, Bledsoe, and Roberts.

Be honest, you are convinced by whoever supports your narrative.

Nah! Brennan, Markham and Bledsoe are all eyewitnesses and provided valuable evidence in their testimony. Earlene Roberts can be counted on to have witnessed LHO  arrive at the rooming house and give valuable information as to his demeanor and to what he was wearing when he left the rooming house. The part about the police car honking twice came much later and Hugh Aynesworth can testify to the evolution of that story. Dougherty was all over the place during his testimony and there's the Truly and Dougherty dad's comment that he wasn't emotionally equipped to give a coherent account.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:12:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.

So your (second-hand) conjecture is better than mine? That's really all you've got?  :D

OK, Mr I-Don't-Use-Theory-But-Facts, let's see what you're really made of, shall we?

Let's take a fact:

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

How does your conjecture account for the fact that two curtain rods were submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting on 15 March 1964?

And how does your conjecture account for the fact that the rods were specifically tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

Over to you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 09:15:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

A cogent objection might be made to the theory I am putting forward:

How did those framing Mr Oswald know for sure in advance that he would make an untypical visit to the Paine home the night before the assassination?

The simple answer is:

They didn't!

And that's where this gets really interesting...

 :-X

 ???

Somebody framed Oswald... ?

And that's where this gets really interesting...
>>> No it doesn't
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:16:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
???

Somebody framed Oswald... ?

Another piece of sophisticated dialectic courtesy of the Lone Nut brains trust!  :D

Anyone else?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 09:19:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Another piece of sophisticated dialectic courtesy of the Lone Nut brains trust!  :D

Anyone else?


Goofball
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:20:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Goofball

Do let us know when you feel brave enough to debate the issue at hand, Mr Chapman!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 09:21:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really?  One end in his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand is pretty damn precise.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

This is your star witness. A package that could be 24" give or take a few, that is measured at 27" according to his brief look at the back seat of his car, that can be carried under the armpit and cupped in his hand by a guy who is 5'9" tall with no signs of having abnormally long arms. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 09:23:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do let us know when you feel brave enough to debate the issue at hand, Mr Chapman!  Thumb1:

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:24:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it

Thanks for folding!  Thumb1:

Which Warren Worshiper is next?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:29:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nah! Brennan, Markham and Bledsoe are all eyewitnesses and provided valuable evidence in their testimony.

And Dougherty was as you sarcastically put it "a very convincing witness  ::)".

Again, nice double-standard.  "Valuable" must mean testimony that supports your biases.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for folding!  Thumb1:

Which Warren Worshiper is next?

You wish

You chicken shit lunatics claim everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:35:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your star witness. A package that could be 24" give or take a few, that is measured at 27" according to his brief look at the back seat of his car, that can be carried under the armpit and cupped in his hand by a guy who is 5'9" tall with no signs of having abnormally long arms.

I guess you missed this particular part:

"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm"

You don't have to accurately estimate anything to see how it is being carried or how much of the back seat it takes up.

But the thing you don't realize is that no matter how hard to try to discredit Frazier and Randle, they were the only ones who saw the bag, and they said that CE 142 was not it.  No matter how hard to try to discredit Frazier and Randle, you have ZERO evidence that a rifle was in that bag or in CE 142.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:36:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You wish

You chicken xxxx lunatics claim everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way

And he further folds by injecting a strawman.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:37:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You wish

You chicken xxxx lunatics claim everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way

You still want to play?

Okay!  Thumb1:

Do you believe this document was faked, planted or altered in some way?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And he further folds by injecting a strawman.

Yep, dumb as rocks, the lot of them!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 09:44:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So your (second-hand) conjecture is better than mine? That's really all you've got?  :D

OK, Mr I-Don't-Use-Theory-But-Facts, let's see what you're really made of, shall we?

Let's take a fact:

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

How does your conjecture account for the fact that two curtain rods were submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting on 15 March 1964?

And how does your conjecture account for the fact that the rods were specifically tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

Over to you!  Thumb1:

If it were me submitting this as evidence of something I would first place the document within the context that it was created thus reducing the need to rely on conjecture. Since no context has been provided (a favorite CTer tactic) what's left is to read the document and interpret it's content.

1) The SS requested the DPD to fingerprint the curtain rods on 3/15/1964 "Request for prints".
2) Lt. JC Day received the specimen
3) Specimen released to SSA Howlett on 3/24/1964 with the notation "1 legible print- does not belong to Oswald"., JC Day

The document does not say look for Oswald's prints so your wrong in speculating that it only request to test for Oswald's prints.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 09:46:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And he further folds by injecting a strawman.

Folds?....  Where I come from, we recognize a snake slithering away on his belly......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 09:47:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it

I'm 100% positive that Oswald was the LN in the SN who shot and killed POTUS and wounded JBC and murdered Officer Tippit.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:49:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

1) The SS requested the DPD to fingerprint the curtain rods on 3/15/1964 "Request for prints".


Thank you, Mr Navarro!

Now!

Which curtain rods precisely do you believe these were which the SS submitted to the DPD for fingerprinting on 3/15/64? Where did they come from?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:49:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm 100% positive that Oswald was the LN in the SN who shot and killed POTUS and wounded JBC and murdered Officer Tippit.

That and $5.00 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:01:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess you missed this particular part:

"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm"

You don't have to accurately estimate anything to see how it is being carried or how much of the back seat it takes up.

But the thing you don't realize is that no matter how hard to try to discredit Frazier and Randle, they were the only ones who saw the bag, and they said that CE 142 was not it.  No matter how hard to try to discredit Frazier and Randle, you have ZERO evidence that a rifle was in that bag or in CE 142.

I guess you haven't read the OP. There's a Mrs. Roberts who might have seen "Oswald carrying a package long enough to carry a rifle". That's three people who saw Oswald carrying a bag that wasn't his lunch. And, apparently, you don't have any idea how circumstantial evidence works.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:03:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you, Mr Navarro!

Now!

Which curtain rods precisely do you believe these were which the SS submitted to the DPD for fingerprinting on 3/15/64? Where did they come from?

 Thumb1:

The Paine garage.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:05:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That and $5.00 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.

I can get coffee for half that at Sergio's. Cuban coffee at that not that muddy water served at that overhyped and overpriced joint.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:09:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have already decided what's what. But none of that proves anything in a scenario where Oswald is truly innocent. If he's truly guilty, then people can review all of these uncommon Oswald actions and easily see a pattern.

If he's truly guilty? Do you seriously have any doubts that Oswald shot JFK, JBC and Tippit?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:11:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Paine garage.

Thank you, Mr Navarro!  Thumb1:

Now!

The visit by the WC (accompanied by Agent Howlett) to the Paine home, during which two curtain rods belonging to Ms Ruth Paine were inspected and taken away, did not take place until March 23.

Would you agree with the statement that March 15 came before March 23?

If so, how do you explain the fact that----in your own words----"The SS requested the DPD to fingerprint the curtain rods on 3/15/1964"?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:13:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess you haven't read the OP. There's a Mrs. Roberts who might have seen "Oswald carrying a package long enough to carry a rifle". That's three people who saw Oswald carrying a bag that wasn't his lunch. And, apparently, you don't have any idea how circumstantial evidence works.

In your mind, the way evidence works is that a "package large enough to carry a rifle" (whatever that means) cannot carry a lunch? Must be some weird lunch bag legislation in Dallas that I'm unaware of.  How many of these people said that the bag they saw wasn't a lunch?

If you think "long bag" is even circumstantial evidence of a rifle, then you're the one who doesn't understand evidence.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:15:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In your mind, the way evidence works is that a "package large enough to carry a rifle" (whatever that means) cannot carry a lunch? Must be some weird lunch bag legislation in Dallas that I'm unaware of.  How many of these people said that  the bag they saw wasn't a lunch?

If you think "long bag" is even circumstantial evidence of a rifle, then you're the one who doesn't understand evidence.

These goons also think it defies the laws of physics for a man to put a small bag (containing lunch) into a larger bag (containing curtain rods) for convenience's sake!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:17:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can get coffee for half that at Sergio's. Cuban coffee at that not that muddy water served at that overhyped and overpriced joint.

Good point.  What you are 100% positive about regarding who killed JFK and Tippit and $2.50 will get you a cup of Cuban coffee at Sergio's.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 10:18:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How many times has this been discussed and you still don't get it.  Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not.

Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not
>>> Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:18:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If he's truly guilty? Do you seriously have any doubts that Oswald shot JFK, JBC and Tippit?

It doesn't take much to run afoul of the orthodoxy...
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:19:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not
>>> Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag, doesn't mean that he wasn't

Agreed.  Who saw him anywhere in the TSBD with a bag of any kind?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:22:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn't take much to run afoul of the orthodoxy...

Mr Chapman attacked Mr Navarro by mistake in an earlier post-------he thought he was a CTer! :D

I guess a man's gotta fill his daily quota somehow...
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:23:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you, Mr Navarro!  Thumb1:

Now!

The visit by the WC (accompanied by Agent Howlett) to the Paine home, during which two curtain rods belonging to Ms Ruth Paine were inspected and taken away, did not take place until March 23.

Would you agree with the statement that March 15 came before March 23?

If so, how do you explain the fact that----in your own words----"The SS requested the DPD to fingerprint the curtain rods on 3/15/1964"?

 Thumb1:

[...Mr Navarro furiously googling 'Howlett curtain rods bugliosi mcadams'...]
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:26:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You still want to play?

Okay!  Thumb1:

Do you believe this document was faked, planted or altered in some way?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

Bumped for Mr Chapman!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 10:26:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agreed.  Who saw him anywhere in the TSBD with a bag of any kind?

Lee admitted that he had a bag in the TSBD....  He said he had his lunch in it.....  So he must have had a bag in his hand when he entered the building that morning...

BUT ...It must not have been of a large or unusual size or Dougherty would have noticed it.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:29:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lee admitted that he had a bag in the TSBD....  He said he had his lunch in it.....  So he must have had a bag in his hand when he entered the building that morning...

BUT ...It must not have been of a large or unusual size or Dougherty would have noticed it.

Not necessarily!

But don't forget this:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 10:30:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agreed.  Who saw him anywhere in the TSBD with a bag of any kind?

Same principle.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 06, 2019, 10:32:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You still want to play?

Okay!  Thumb1:

Do you believe this document was faked, planted or altered in some way?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

That document was not faked, planted, or altered in any way.  What is your purpose in posting it here. What point are you trying to make with it?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Chapman attacked Mr Navarro by mistake in an earlier post-------he thought he was a CTer! :D

I guess a man's gotta fill his daily quota somehow...

Show me where I attacked Oscar. I disagree with other LNers at times.. just as you CTers disagree with other CTers  at times.
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:39:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That document was not faked, planted, or altered in any way.  What is your purpose in posting it here. What point are you trying to make with it?

Hello Mr Nickerson!

Word to the wise: it helps to read a thread before jumping in uninformed!  Thumb1:

But what the hey:

According to this document, which we agree was not faked, planted or altered in any way, 2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett for fingerprinting by DPD on 15 March 1964.

2 curtain rods were taken from Ms Paine's garage during the WC's on-the-record visit on 23 March 1964.

15 March 1964 preceded 23 March 1964, yes?

So----------where had the 2 curtain rods which Agent Howlett submitted on 15 March come from?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:40:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lee admitted that he had a bag in the TSBD....  He said he had his lunch in it.....  So he must have had a bag in his hand when he entered the building that morning...

No, he (allegedly) said that he brought his lunch to work, not that he carried a bag inside the TSBD.

Quote
BUT ...It must not have been of a large or unusual size or Dougherty would have noticed it.

Agreed.  Dougherty didn't just say he didn't notice anything.  He said Oswald was empty-handed.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:41:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show me where I attacked Oscar. I disagree with other LNers at times.. just as you CTers disagree with other CTers  at times.

Show me where you answered this!:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You still want to play?

Okay!  Thumb1:

Do you believe this document was faked, planted or altered in some way?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:41:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not necessarily!

But don't forget this:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


Yeah....and Shelley just forgot to mention that himself.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:41:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[...Mr Navarro furiously googling 'Howlett curtain rods bugliosi mcadams'...]

LOL! Simple, really. The request was made on the 15th to the DPD. The specimen was returned to SSA Howlett on the 24th. Day did not take fingerprints of the curtain rods until the DPD had access to the Paine garage which could have occurred during the time the Paine's returned from testifying to the WC.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:45:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That document was not faked, planted, or altered in any way.  What is your purpose in posting it here. What point are you trying to make with it?

To ask how curtain rods submitted into evidence on 3/15/64 and released on 3/24/64 were somehow still in the Paine garage on 3/23/64.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 10:45:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not necessarily!

But don't forget this:

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.


 Thumb1:

This is as bad as Fritz Lies.... "Well I don't remember who told me that (our patsy, the arch villain) Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald  had a room in a rooming house on Beckley.   One of my officers out in the Hall told me that, but I don't remember who it was"   In reality, Lee Oswald had told him that he was registered as OH Lee in the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley.   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 10:47:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL! Simple, really. The request was made on the 15th to the DPD. The specimen was returned to SSA Howlett on the 24th. Day did not take fingerprints of the curtain rods until the DPD had access to the Paine garage which could have occurred during the time the Paine's returned from testifying to the WC.

Simple, but wrong.  The CSSS form was filled out when evidence was actually submitted.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:48:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL! Simple, really. The request was made on the 15th to the DPD. The specimen was returned to SSA Howlett on the 24th. Day did not take fingerprints of the curtain rods until the DPD had access to the Paine garage which could have occurred during the time the Paine's returned from testifying to the WC.

You've cracked it, Mr Navarro! The actual curtain rods weren't actually submitted, just the request!

The solution was staring me right in the...

Hang on... Uh... Mr Navarro?

(https://i.imgur.com/w6G823N.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Oscar Navarro on March 06, 2019, 10:53:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simple, but wrong.  The CSSS form was filled out when evidence was actually submitted.

Yes, it does say that.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 10:55:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, he (allegedly) said that he brought his lunch to work, not that he carried a bag inside the TSBD.

Agreed.  Dougherty didn't just say he didn't notice anything.  He said Oswald was empty-handed.

'I just caught him out of the corner of my eye' -JackD

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 10:57:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, it does say that.

Indeed it does!

Now-------your explanation, please?

Where did these 2 curtain rods come from? Can't have been the Paine garage. So...?

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in cracking this nut!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 11:02:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'I just caught him out of the corner of my eye' -JackD

Mr Chapman, Mr Chapman, why don't you want to talk about the DPD Crime Scene Search Section document on 2 curtain rods tested as to see whether they bore Mr Oswald's prints?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

I was 100% sure you probably noticed it the first three times I posted it for you!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 06, 2019, 11:03:40 PM
A truly (no pun intended) intriguing find Mr Ford. Don?t expect any meaningful debate from the sheep.....I suspect you have been around long enough to appreciate that. We see all the usual tactics on display in your thread.

Other pieces of evidence that were tied to the accused assassin were found over time in the TSBD. The clipboard was found on the 6th floor days afterward the Kaiser (from memory). Oswald?s jacket was discovered some time after the event in the domino room.

I do not believe that as late as March that the fingerprints of the other TSBD employees had been obtained (apart from Givens and possibly Lovelady who had had prior "dealings with the law"). The real question is, why was there a need to fingerprint at all? If obtained from the Paine garage and Oswald?s prints found, so what......proves nada. However if discovered in or around the TSBD.....another story.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indeed it does!

Now-------your explanation, please?

Where did these 2 curtain rods come from? Can't have been the Paine garage. So...?

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in cracking this nut!  Thumb1:

[...Mr Navarro, now at the point of utter panic, frantically googling von pein curtain rods...]
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 11:10:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, he (allegedly) said that he brought his lunch to work, not that he carried a bag inside the TSBD.

Agreed.  Dougherty didn't just say he didn't notice anything.  He said Oswald was empty-handed.

Question:.....  How reliable was Dougherty?  I think he was peeing down his leg when he was being questioned....

The dim bulb could have easily overlooked a normal lunch sack....But I doubt that he would not have noticed that Lee was carrying a giant bag if Lee had been carrying such a large and unusual bag.   ( which raises another point..... Apparently most of the other workers were right there on the first floor getting ready to start their day, when lee entered the building.  If he'd have been carrying an unusual size sack surely someone would have noticed...


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 06, 2019, 11:15:06 PM
Not wishing to derail Alan's twist in the curtain rod printing but can anyone show any sign of evidence that CE142 was sealed at both ends?

Still waiting for answers to how many bags were dusted in the TSBD that day and by whom?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 11:17:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A truly (no pun intended) intriguing find Mr Ford. Don?t expect any meaningful debate from the sheep.....I suspect you have been around long enough to appreciate that. We see all the usual tactics on display in your thread.

Other pieces of evidence that were tied to the accused assassin were found over time in the TSBD. The clipboard was found on the 6th floor days afterward the Kaiser (from memory). Oswald?s jacket was discovered some time after the event in the domino room.

I do not believe that as late as March that the fingerprints of the other TSBD employees had been obtained (apart from Givens and possibly Lovelady who had had prior "dealings with the law"). The real question is, why was there a need to fingerprint at all? If obtained from the Paine garage and Oswald?s prints found, so what......proves nada. However if discovered in or around the TSBD.....another story.

Thank you, Mr Crow---I have quietly followed your own work with admiration for some time!

The part of your post I have bolded: nail on head, sir!

The Nutters got nuttin' to say to this.  ;D

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 11:17:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Chapman, Mr Chapman, why don't you want to talk about the DPD Crime Scene Search Section document on 2 curtain rods tested as to see whether they bore Mr Oswald's prints?

I was 100% sure you probably noticed it the first three times I posted it for you!  :D

I'm still at that 100% probable...

   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 11:19:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm still at that 100% probable...

 

Thanks for re-folding, Mr Chapman!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 11:25:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you, Mr Crow---I have quietly followed your own work with admiration for some time!

The part of your post I have bolded: nail on head, sir!

The Nutters got nuttin' to say to this.  ;D

The part of your post I have bolded: nail on head, sir!

Yes indeed...  Mr Crow can certain crow about that observation .....  Nice catch.... Colin.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 11:29:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A truly (no pun intended) intriguing find Mr Ford. Don?t expect any meaningful debate from the sheep.....I suspect you have been around long enough to appreciate that. We see all the usual tactics on display in your thread.

Other pieces of evidence that were tied to the accused assassin were found over time in the TSBD. The clipboard was found on the 6th floor days afterward the Kaiser (from memory). Oswald?s jacket was discovered some time after the event in the domino room.

I do not believe that as late as March that the fingerprints of the other TSBD employees had been obtained (apart from Givens and possibly Lovelady who had had prior "dealings with the law"). The real question is, why was there a need to fingerprint at all? If obtained from the Paine garage and Oswald?s prints found, so what......proves nada. However if discovered in or around the TSBD.....another story.

Oswald's blue jacket >> lunch room (from memory)
Oswald's white/tan/gray/polkadot/technicolor/whatever colour jacket>> rooming house (from memory) zipped up on the way to his destiny
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 11:38:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald's blue jacket >> lunch room (from memory)
Oswald's white/tan/gray/polkadot/rainbow jacket>> rooming house (from memory) zipped up on the way to his destiny

2 x curtain rods >> ? ? ?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 01:04:03 AM
Now!

This Crime Scene Search Section document, which has reduced our Lone Nutter friends to mortified silence, bears an extremely significant entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/yRe31jT.jpg)

Those two numbers---------275 & 276----------tell us how and why the fix was put in!

Paine home---Irving---Monday March 23:

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.)


Do you see it, friends?

 ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 07, 2019, 01:35:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The part of your post I have bolded: nail on head, sir!

Yes indeed...  Mr Crow can certain crow about that observation .....  Nice catch.... Colin.

All credit to Alan......was pretty clear from his previous posts.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 07, 2019, 01:41:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald's blue jacket >> lunch room (from memory)
Oswald's white/tan/gray/polkadot/rainbow jacket>> rooming house (from memory) zipped up on the way to his destiny

Oswald blue jacket found in domino room......not 2nd floor lunchroom......

Salient point is that non-hidden Oswald related evidence was "surprisingly" found some considerable time after the events in the TSBD. Suppose it depends where the rods were found.....but it appears curtain rods were found by March 15.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 02:07:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

This Crime Scene Search Section document, which has reduced our Lone Nutter friends to mortified silence, bears an extremely significant entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/yRe31jT.jpg)

Those two numbers---------275 & 276----------tell us how and why the fix was put in!

Paine home---Irving---Monday March 23:

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.)


Do you see it, friends?

 ???
Sorry, not understanding your seeming enthusiasm/excitement ....

Quote
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf6.txt
.........
The LaFontaines clearly want their readers to believe that these
*might* be curtain rods that Oswald brought into the Depository on
November 22nd.  If they are, a major part of the Warren Commission's
case against Oswald collapses.

Jean Davison deserves credit for questioning the LaFontaines treatment
of this issue, and for running down important information.

She contacted Cindy Smolovik, Dallas Municipal Archivist, and asked
about these pictures of "curtain rods."  What the Dallas Archives has
is (1) two pictures of prints, KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE
PAINE'S GARAGE, numbered 275 and 276.  (2) A form from the DPD
Identification Bureau showing that Howlett of the Secret Service
submitted to Day two curtain rods, numbered 275 and 276, on March 15,
1964.  Day's notation on this form is "1 legible print -- does not
belong to Oswald."  The form shows the rods were released back to
Howlett on March 24th.

Finally, (3) A form, dated 3-25-64, and numbered 256, with the
notation "opposite those on other side and" [truncated].  The card
shows fingerprints on a curtain rod.

In short, what the Archives has is one set of prints on curtain rods
from the Paine's garage, and another print or prints, not known to be
from the Paine's garage, BUT NOT KNOWN TO BE FROM ANYWERE ELSE EITHER.

Given the dates -- the unidentified fingerprints are dated the day
after Day released the rods back to Howlett -- it seems likely that
this is simply more paperwork on the rods found in the Paine's garage.
.............
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 07, 2019, 02:33:49 AM
I believe Alan's argument considers this statement.......

Mr. JENNER - Now, curtain rods can be of various types. One type of curtain rod, as I remember, is a solid brass rod. Others are hollow. Some are shaped. Would you describe these curtain rods, please?
Mrs. PAINE - They were a light weight.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me; do you still have them?
Mrs. PAINE - I still have them.
Mr. JENNER - All right.

The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 9:15 a.m., on March 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Norman Redlich, assistant counsels of the President's Commission.

And there is this.....

Senator COOPER - Can you just describe the length?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - The length of the reds, at the time you wrapped them.
Mrs. PAINE - They would be 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - They would be about maybe 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - You remember wrapping them. Do you remember what the size, the length of the reds were at the time you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - How long?
Mrs. PAINE - Didn't I answer about 36 inches?
Mr. JENNER - In other words, you pushed them together so that then, they were then their minimum length, unexpanded?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - They were not extended, and in that condition they were 36 inches long?
Mrs. PAINE - Something like that.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 02:41:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe Alan's argument considers this statement.......

Mr. JENNER - Now, curtain rods can be of various types. One type of curtain rod, as I remember, is a solid brass rod. Others are hollow. Some are shaped. Would you describe these curtain rods, please?
Mrs. PAINE - They were a light weight.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me; do you still have them?
Mrs. PAINE - I still have them.
Mr. JENNER - All right.

The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 9:15 a.m., on March 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Norman Redlich, assistant counsels of the President's Commission.

And there is this.....

Senator COOPER - Can you just describe the length?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - The length of the reds, at the time you wrapped them.
Mrs. PAINE - They would be 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - They would be about maybe 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - You remember wrapping them. Do you remember what the size, the length of the reds were at the time you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - How long?
Mrs. PAINE - Didn't I answer about 36 inches?
Mr. JENNER - In other words, you pushed them together so that then, they were then their minimum length, unexpanded?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - They were not extended, and in that condition they were 36 inches long?
Mrs. PAINE - Something like that.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Colin, there is a reference in and their area of the testimony you quoted
in which the WC Asst Counsel reminds Ruth the curtain rods
in the garage were discussed in her very recent testimony
in DC, in which she agreed to leave the curtain rod
undisturbed. The dates are murky, this won?t be the resolved,
technically the rods were under WC control from the date of
the earlier testimony, per Ruth?s agreement.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 07, 2019, 02:46:20 AM
OK Tom,

will re-read.....looking for the dates, times and places that Ruth testified.

Meanwhile found this in Michael's testimony

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you say the curtain rods are still in the garage?
Mr. PAINE - Yes, I think so.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how long are they?
Mr. PAINE - Well, I think this is, when they expand, I guess the curtain rods themselves are 32 1/2 inches to 3 feet, but the two of them slide together to make a pair, this expanding type just of rod metal.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 07, 2019, 02:54:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe Alan's argument considers this statement.......

Mr. JENNER - Now, curtain rods can be of various types. One type of curtain rod, as I remember, is a solid brass rod. Others are hollow. Some are shaped. Would you describe these curtain rods, please?
Mrs. PAINE - They were a light weight.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me; do you still have them?
Mrs. PAINE - I still have them.
Mr. JENNER - All right.

The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 9:15 a.m., on March 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Norman Redlich, assistant counsels of the President's Commission.

And there is this.....

Senator COOPER - Can you just describe the length?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - The length of the reds, at the time you wrapped them.
Mrs. PAINE - They would be 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - They would be about maybe 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - You remember wrapping them. Do you remember what the size, the length of the reds were at the time you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - How long?
Mrs. PAINE - Didn't I answer about 36 inches?
Mr. JENNER - In other words, you pushed them together so that then, they were then their minimum length, unexpanded?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - They were not extended, and in that condition they were 36 inches long?
Mrs. PAINE - Something like that.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.

Ruth Paine was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 07, 2019, 05:34:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag...

Whose address is that?
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 05:39:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Chapman, Mr Chapman, why don't you want to talk about the DPD Crime Scene Search Section document on 2 curtain rods tested as to see whether they bore Mr Oswald's prints?

(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)

I was 100% sure you probably noticed it the first three times I posted it for you!  :D
Anybody else see what I noticed? I dislike speculation, but how is it avoided, now? Is 3/15/64 an error, vs. 3/25/64? Was an attempt
made to correct the return date, from 3/24 to 3/26 ?
How will these dates ever be resolved, to the delight of all interested parties?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
(http://jfkdebate.com/images/CurtainRodsCE1952.jpg)
Cropped close-ups:
(http://jfkdebate.com/images/CurtainRods032464closeCRP.jpg)
(http://jfkdebate.com/images/CurtainRodsCE1952CRP.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 10:45:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ruth Paine was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th.

Howlett was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th :D

Read!:

Mr. JENNER - Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT - There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you please search the rest of that shelf and see if you can find any other curtain rods or anything similar to the curtain rods, and look on the bottom shelves, Mr. Howlett, will you please? While he is doing that, Mrs. Paine, I notice there is on your garage floor what looks like a file casing you have for documents similar, at least it seems substantially identical to those that we had in Washington last week.
Mrs. PAINE - This is a filing case similar, yes, slightly different in color to one that you had in Washington. It contains madrigal music. It was on November 22 at the apartment where my husband was living.
Agent HOWLETT - I have just finished searching both shelves and I don't find any other curtain rods.


You are contending that Mr Howlett gave these answers without thinking to mention that
-----------he was already perfectly familiar with these two rods and already knew what their current exact location would be because
-----------he had days before this removed them, inspected them, sent them for fingerprinting, and restored them to this location himself?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 10:48:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anybody else see what I noticed? I dislike speculation, but how is it avoided, now? Is 3/15/64 an error, vs. 3/25/64?

This makes sense!

----------------The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day at 9:45 on the morning of March 25:

(https://i.imgur.com/8SLL2Rl.jpg)

----------------The curtain rods were then released by Lieutenant Day to Agent Howlett at 7:50 on the morning of March 24:

(https://i.imgur.com/WQhJUXs.jpg)

Solved!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 11:00:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Colin, there is a reference in and their area of the testimony you quoted
in which the WC Asst Counsel reminds Ruth the curtain rods
in the garage were discussed in her very recent testimony
in DC, in which she agreed to leave the curtain rod
undisturbed. The dates are murky, this won?t be the resolved,
technically the rods were under WC control from the date of
the earlier testimony, per Ruth?s agreement.

Good to see your new hero, Ms Davison, is teaching you well, Mr Scully!  Thumb1:

Unfortunately, however, Davisonian waffle won't get you out of this.

The dates are not in the least murky:

------------Agent Howlett submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant J. C. Day on March 15
------------Lieutenant J. C. Day released the 2 curtain rods back to Agent Howlett on March 24.

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 07, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Howlett was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th :D

Read!:

Mr. JENNER - Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT - There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you please search the rest of that shelf and see if you can find any other curtain rods or anything similar to the curtain rods, and look on the bottom shelves, Mr. Howlett, will you please? While he is doing that, Mrs. Paine, I notice there is on your garage floor what looks like a file casing you have for documents similar, at least it seems substantially identical to those that we had in Washington last week.
Mrs. PAINE - This is a filing case similar, yes, slightly different in color to one that you had in Washington. It contains madrigal music. It was on November 22 at the apartment where my husband was living.
Agent HOWLETT - I have just finished searching both shelves and I don't find any other curtain rods.


You are contending that Mr Howlett gave these answers without thinking to mention that he was already perfectly familiar with
-----------these two rods
-----------their current exact location?

Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 11:18:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself.

So Howlett and Jenner knowingly misled Ms Paine?

Or do you think Ms Paine was in on this little piece of theatre?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 07, 2019, 11:23:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Howlett and Jenner knowingly misled Ms Paine?

Or do you think Ms Paine was in on this little piece of theatre?

How did they mislead Mrs Paine?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 11:31:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How did they mislead Mrs Paine?

I'm not saying they did, Mr Nickerson, but it follows from what you're saying:

"Ruth Paine was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th."

If Ms Paine is 'obviously' unaware of this, then she appears equally obviously unaware that the curtain rods have at some point since then been restored to the garage by one of the men standing next to her:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you rise and enter the garage and point out in my presence and in the presence of Mr. Howlett where that package is?



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 12:19:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2 x curtain rods >> ? ? ?

Are you so anal that you need everybody to be interested in everything you are?
Are you another Doyle who makes one issue his life's obsession?

Egads, man... don't tell me you're one of those Lafontaine supporters  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 01:03:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you so anal that you need everybody to be interested in everything you are?
Are you another Doyle who makes one issue his life's obsession?

Egads, man... don't tell me you're one of those Lafontaine supporters  ::)

 :D

Nope, Mr Chapman, I'm one of those evidence supporters!

The Lone Nutter cry for years has been, 'If Oswald brought curtain rods rather than the rifle into the building that morning, then show us the money! Where are the damn curtain rods?'

Well, here they are: submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprint analysis on 15 March 1964.

Lone Nutter attempts to explain away
-----------the clearly written 15 March date on the official Crime Scene Search Section document, and
-----------the unimpeachable fact that 2 curtain rods were---------get this-------fingerprinted for comparison with Mr Oswald's known prints
-----------continue to fail!

But by all means, Mr Chapman, keep howling at the moon! Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 01:13:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not wishing to derail Alan's twist in the curtain rod printing but can anyone show any sign of evidence that CE142 was sealed at both ends?

Still waiting for answers to how many bags were dusted in the TSBD that day and by whom?

When did you start waiting... 12:30-ish, 11/22/63 I'll bet.
Say, why not dust every last box in the TSBD while you're at it..
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 01:24:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

This Crime Scene Search Section document, which has reduced our Lone Nutter friends to mortified silence, bears an extremely significant entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/yRe31jT.jpg)

Those two numbers---------275 & 276----------tell us how and why the fix was put in!

Paine home---Irving---Monday March 23:

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.)


Do you see it, friends?

 ???

Now!

Let's return to the scene of the Paine home, Irving, March 23:

Mr. JENNER - You have testified that the blanket-wrapped package was in turn tied or wrapped with string?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You think perhaps, around in four places?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Was the string of the weight and character of that which I have in my hand, that is, this ball of string?
Mrs. PAINE - It could have been that weight or it could have been as heavy as this other short piece that's on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."


These are the first numbered 'Ruth Paine Exhibits' to be marked as such this evening.

Question!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Where did that number come from?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 01:26:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Nope, Mr Chapman, I'm one of those evidence supporters!

The Lone Nutter cry for years has been, 'If Oswald brought curtain rods rather than the rifle into the building that morning, then show us the money! Where are the damn curtain rods?'

Well, here they are: submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprint analysis on 15 March 1964.

Lone Nutter attempts to explain away
-----------the clearly written 15 March date on the official Crime Scene Search Section document, and
-----------the unimpeachable fact that 2 curtain rods were---------get this-------fingerprinted for comparison with Mr Oswald's known prints
-----------continue to fail!

But by all means, Mr Chapman, keep howling at the moon! Thumb1:

Cut to the quick: Are you claiming that Oswald took curtain rods to work that day.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 01:27:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cut to the quick: Are you claiming that Oswald took curtain rods to work that day.

Yes!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 01:40:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes!  Thumb1:

He denied it, told Fritz it was his lunch
Tell us why he would need a Buell-estimated 27" bag for a phuckin' sandwich 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 01:59:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

Let's return to the scene of the Paine home, Irving, March 23:

Mr. JENNER - You have testified that the blanket-wrapped package was in turn tied or wrapped with string?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You think perhaps, around in four places?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Was the string of the weight and character of that which I have in my hand, that is, this ball of string?
Mrs. PAINE - It could have been that weight or it could have been as heavy as this other short piece that's on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."


These are the first numbered 'Ruth Paine Exhibits' to be marked as such this evening.

Question!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Where did that number come from?

It takes a special kind of crazy to see sinister intent in every little bit of minutia
You lot just don't see the forest..
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:12:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He denied it, told Fritz it was his lunch
Tell us why he would need a Buell-estimated 27" bag for a phuckin' sandwich

If that's what he indeed told Captain Fritz, then it has a simple explanation, which I've already given earlier in the thread. Do your homework, man!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These goons also think it defies the laws of physics for a man to put a small bag (containing lunch) into a larger bag (containing curtain rods) for convenience's sake!


No one ever made any such claim.  Oswald was asked about his lunch.  Frazier clearly, and in multiple instances in his testimony confirms that Oswald did not have a lunch that morning.  There is no ambiguity on that point.  Take it up with Oswald if you don't like the facts: 


"I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:13:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It takes a special kind of crazy to see sinister intent in every little bit of minutia
You lot just don't see the forest..

So Mr Chapman can't answer... No surprise there!  :D

Now! Anyone else want to have a try?

Why did Mr Jenner start with 270?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 07, 2019, 02:15:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Nope, Mr Chapman, I'm one of those evidence supporters!

The Lone Nutter cry for years has been, 'If Oswald brought curtain rods rather than the rifle into the building that morning, then show us the money! Where are the damn curtain rods?'

Well, here they are: submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprint analysis on 15 March 1964.

Lone Nutter attempts to explain away
-----------the clearly written 15 March date on the official Crime Scene Search Section document, and
-----------the unimpeachable fact that 2 curtain rods were---------get this-------fingerprinted for comparison with Mr Oswald's known prints
-----------continue to fail!

But by all means, Mr Chapman, keep howling at the moon! Thumb1:
Excuse me, but how are curtain rods found in the garage owned by the Paines, which is where the rods you cited were found, evidence that Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work, to the TSBD?

If he brought rods to work then they should be found/located in the TSBD. Finding curtain rods back at the garage clearly, to me, indicates he didn't bring them, i.e., these rods, to work since they are in the garage.

And for what it's worth, here is a photo of Oswald's room on the eve of the assassination. The rods appear to me to be fine:

(http://www.jfkassassination.net/images/room1.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:17:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No one ever made any such claim.  Oswald was asked about his lunch.  Frazier clearly, and in multiple instances in his testimony confirms that Oswald did not have a lunch that morning.[/b]

Nope! Mr Frazier has stated merely that Mr Oswald told him he did not have a lunch that morning.  Thumb1:

But it's good to see you back, Mr Smith!

How do you account for the fact that
-----------2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting on March 15
-----------Lieutenant Day compared the results with prints of Mr Oswald which he had on file?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:21:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Excuse me, but how are curtain rods found in the garage owned by the Paines evidence that Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work, to the TSBD?

Do try to keep up, Mr Galbraith!  ::)

The curtain rods found in the garage were found on the evening of 23 March 1964.

The curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett were submitted on 15 March 1964 and not released until 24 March 1964.

Do you accept that 15 March 1964 fell before 23 March 1964?

And that 23 March 1964 fell before 24 March 1964?

If so, what is your explanation for this curious circumstance?

And while you're there:

Why would 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage be fingerprinted for a match with Mr Oswald's? What would be the point exactly? Was he suspected of excessive interest in home improvement?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 02:29:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nope! Mr Frazier has stated merely that Mr Oswald told him he did not have a lunch that morning.  Thumb1:

But it's good to see you back, Mr Smith!

How do you account for the fact that
-----------2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting on March 15
-----------Lieutenant Day compared the results with prints of Mr Oswald which he had on file?

 Thumb1:

Ruth Paine's testimony was taken on March 23 AT HER HOME.  Paine had made reference to them a week earlier.  During the course of that testimony she confirmed that the curtain rods were still in her garage.  They were never in the TSBD.  That is crooked John-like logic.  It seems obvious why they might be tested for Oswald's prints.  His cover story for making the unexpected trip to get his rifle involved - wait for it - curtain rods.  So they were tested and Oswald had never touched them.  If you believe, however, that he did wrap them up and take them to the TSBD, then where are his prints?  Why would the DPD ever acknowledge any such rods existed in 1964 etc.   Silly.

MR. JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, they are."

MR. JENNER -- "And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?"

MRS. PAINE -- "No, I do not."


MR. JENNER -- "Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods."

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes--as you recall."

MR. JENNER -- "You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?"

MRS. PAINE -- "I have not touched it."

MR. JENNER -- "And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes. .... It is on a shelf above the workbench." .... This, to the best of my recollection, contains venetian blinds."
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:40:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ruth Paine's testimony was taken on March 23 AT HER HOME.  Paine had made reference to them a week earlier.  During the course of that testimony she confirmed that the curtain rods were still in her garage. 

Which means you need to explain how there can have been 2 curtain rods in the DPD Crime Scene Search Section between 15 March and 24 March.

Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 02:44:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If that's what he indeed told Captain Fritz, then it has a simple explanation, which I've already given earlier in the thread. Do your homework, man!  Thumb1:

Did the bag contain curtain rods?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

[Excerpt]

Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?
There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work (3H72, 9H448). Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods (3H75-6). Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife (1H68-9). He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up (10H297, 10H302). On the afternoon of the assassination, Allan Grant of LIFE Magazine photographed the curtain rods in place, and that evening a photographer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram did the same (Dale Myers, With Malice, pp. 52-53). Here is one of the photos he shot, and here is the other.

Captain Fritz testified that there were no curtain rods found in the depository (4H218).

If the bag really contained curtain rods, where did the curtain rods come from and where did they go?

What did Oswald say about the bag?

When questioned by police officers after his arrest, Oswald told them that he did not bring a long bag to work and the only thing he brought to work was a bag lunch (4H217-8). Frazier testified that Oswald did not bring a lunch to work the day of the assassination. He even asked Oswald where his lunch was, since Oswald always brought a lunch, and Oswald told him [Buell] he was going to buy his lunch that day (2H228). Oswald lied about the lunch bag when there was little reason to do so. Oswald lied about bringing a long package, even when the police officers suggested it contained curtain rods (7H305, 4H218).
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:54:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did the bag contain curtain rods?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

[Excerpt]

[...]

If the bag really contained curtain rods, where did the curtain rods come from and where did they go?

Already answered pages back!

1. They came from the Paine garage. They measured 27.5 inches long----just the length of the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald with on the morning of 11/22.

2. They ended up in the Crime Scene Search Section being tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days before the WC took 2 'undisturbed' curtain rods out of the Paine garage: go figure.

Ole Man McAdams ain't gonna get you outta this one, Mr Chapman!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 02:55:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If that's what he indeed told Captain Fritz, then it has a simple explanation, which I've already given earlier in the thread. Do your homework, man!  Thumb1:


Give us a hint... if it's something about going out to buy his lunch (what he told Buell he was going to do) show us where and show us who saw him do so
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 02:58:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Give us a hint... if it's something about going out to buy his lunch (what he told Buell he was going to do) show us where and show us who saw him do so

He understood by now how he had been set up, and so denied having brought a bulky package to work that day.

Not complicated!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 02:58:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which means you need to explain how there can have been 2 curtain rods in the DPD Crime Scene Search Section between 15 March and 24 March.

Thumb1:

Paine makes reference to them in her earlier testimony. They are taken from her garage and tested for Oswald's prints.  They are returned to the garage.  Not terribly complicated.  What are you suggesting?  That they were found in the TSBD, held somewhere until March '64, and then for some inexplicable reason brought to light by the very folks trying to frame Oswald by claiming he had no curtain rods?  Why not just quietly toss them?  LOL. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 03:03:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He understood by now how he had been set up, and so denied having brought a bulky package to work that day.

Not complicated!  Thumb1:

So he is lying now?  Why would Oswald deny carrying a bag that contained only his lunch and curtain rods?  If innocent, he would be screaming from the roof tops for someone to find it.  It would have been exculpatory.   Instead he lies about the bag knowing that Frazier saw him carry it with all the implications of a lie in that context?  Whew.  And why would he lie that morning - before the assassination - by telling Frazier that he did not have his lunch?   Good grief.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:04:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Already answered pages back!

1. They came from the Paine garage. They measured 27.5 inches long----just the length of the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald with on the morning of 11/22.

2. They ended up in the Crime Scene Search Section being tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days before the WC took 2 'undisturbed' curtain rods out of the Paine garage: go figure.

Ole Man McAdams ain't gonna get you outta this one, Mr Chapman!  :D

You eliminated this part from my post. Kind of inconvenient, huh..

(Quote)

When questioned by police officers after his arrest, Oswald told them that he did not bring a long bag to work and the only thing he brought to work was a bag lunch (4H217-8). Frazier testified that Oswald did not bring a lunch to work the day of the assassination. He even asked Oswald where his lunch was, since Oswald always brought a lunch, and Oswald told him [Buell] he was going to buy his lunch that day (2H228). Oswald lied about the lunch bag when there was little reason to do so. Oswald lied about bringing a long package, even when the police officers suggested it contained curtain rods (7H305, 4H218).
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:06:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paine makes reference to them in her earlier testimony. They are taken from her garage and tested for Oswald's prints.

 :D

The relevant Paine testimony comes on 19 March, 4 days after the curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting!

The entire premise of the March 23 inspection in situ of the curtain rods is that they have not left her garage at any time since months before the assassination!

And why on earth would curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? The very fact that they had been found there would have been ample proof on its own that Mr Oswald hadn't brought them to work on the morning of the assassination!  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:13:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So he is lying now?

Either Captain Fritz is lying (he is good at that), or Mr Oswald is lying (ditto)!

If the latter, then it is because Mr Oswald realises he has been stitched up and has calculated that his best defence for now is to deny having brought a bulky package to work.

You want to force into his hands on the morning of 11/22 a bag much longer than that seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle.

I--------on the other hand--------believe he had in his hands a bag perfectly consistent with the bag seen by those two witnesses.

That's just one of the several reasons why I'm winning here, and you and your pals are losing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:14:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He understood by now how he had been set up, and so denied having brought a bulky package to work that day.

Not complicated!  Thumb1:

That marks you as a troll... unless you can name those (other than the prime suspect) who knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:18:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That marks you as a troll... unless you can name those (other than the prime suspect) who knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

Are you ok, Mr Chapman?  :-[
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:23:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

The relevant Paine testimony comes on 19 March, 4 days after the curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting!

The entire premise of the March 23 inspection in situ of the curtain rods is that they have not left her garage at any time since months before the assassination!

And why on earth would curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? The very fact that they had been found there would have been ample proof on its own that Mr Oswald hadn't brought them to work on the morning of the assassination!  ::)

If they hadn't done the testing, you lot would be pissssssssing your panties over that

They were giving Oswald the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:27:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you ok, Mr Chapman?  :-[

So you can't identify any conspirators. Got it.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:29:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

Let's return to the scene of the Paine home, Irving, March 23:

Mr. JENNER - You have testified that the blanket-wrapped package was in turn tied or wrapped with string?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You think perhaps, around in four places?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Was the string of the weight and character of that which I have in my hand, that is, this ball of string?
Mrs. PAINE - It could have been that weight or it could have been as heavy as this other short piece that's on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."


These are the first numbered 'Ruth Paine Exhibits' to be marked as such this evening.

Question!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Where did that number come from?

Friends!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Reason I ask is, in a little while we're going to get this:

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
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.)


Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 03:30:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Either Captain Fritz is lying (he is good at that), or Mr Oswald is lying (ditto)!

If the latter, then it is because Mr Oswald realises he has been stitched up and has calculated that his best defence for now is to deny having brought a bulky package to work.

You want to force into his hands on the morning of 11/22 a bag much longer than that seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle.

I--------on the other hand--------believe he had in his hands a bag perfectly consistent with the bag seen by those two witnesses.

That's just one of the several reasons why I'm winning here, and you and your pals are losing!  Thumb1:

So Oswald's best defense was to lie about carrying a long bag that he knew Frazier and possibly others would confirm he had when it contained only curtain rods and his lunch! And it was still laying around somewhere in the TSBD to be found to assist him.  LOL.  That is your theory as to why he lied?  It was in his interest that the bag be found if it contained curtain rods and not a rifle.  In your bizarre theory, however, Oswald is lying against his own self-interest.  The first criminal to lie himself into trouble instead of out of it.  And the DPD involved in the frame up find the curtain rods, hide them until March, convince Ruth Paine to lie under oath, and then suddenly bring them to light for no apparent reason to blow their own frame up!   Wow.  Great story.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:33:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they hadn't done the testing, you lot would be pissssssssing your panties over that

They were giving Oswald the benefit of the doubt.

Giving Mr Oswald the benefit of the doubt?

How exactly?

How would Mr Oswald's fingerprints found on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage have bolstered the idea that he had brought them to the Depository on the morning of the assassination?

You're failing, Mr Chapman----------try to fail better next time!

 :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:35:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you can't identify any conspirators. Got it.

You and I have one thing in common, Mr Chapman
---------neither of us knows who shot JFK!

Frustrating, isn't it?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:37:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Mr Chapman can't answer... No surprise there!  :D

Now! Anyone else want to have a try?

Why did Mr Jenner start with 270?

So Mr Chapman can't answer..
>>> You got my answer
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:41:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Giving Mr Oswald the benefit of the doubt?

How exactly?

How would Mr Oswald's fingerprints found on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage have bolstered the idea that he had brought them to the Depository on the morning of the assassination?

You're failing, Mr Chapman----------try to fail better next time!

 :D

Are you saying they didn't dust for them
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2019, 03:44:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You and I have one thing in common, Mr Chapman
---------neither of us knows who shot JFK!

Frustrating, isn't it?

My money's on Dirty Harvey
You lot would choose him if faced with a heaven or hell choice
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 03:46:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Oswald's best defense was to lie about carrying a long bag [...]

Nope! His best defense was to tell Captain Fritz the true fact that he "went outside to watch P. Parade"----a claim that only came to light on 19 February 2019 when Agent Hosty's handwritten write-up of the first interrogation was made public. The Lone Nutter response to that was as incoherent as the Lone Nutter response to the present matter!  :D

But that wasn't enough to save Mr Oswald. He hadn't been set up as a shooter. He'd been set up as having brought a rifle to the Depository that morning. His carrying a long bulky package was----he now realised-----part of the frame. So he made a calculated decision to deny having brought anything in a long bulky package to work that day.

The above is, of course, predicated on the assumption that Mr Oswald didn't come straight out and inform Captain Fritz that he had carried the curtain rods to work that day. Not being a Warren Gullible like you, Mr Smith, I don't believe Captain Fritz and those around him to have been paragons of integrity!

Certainly the shenanigans around the 2 curtain rods tell me my lack of gullibility produces much more coherent results than your surplus of gullibility!

One thing we do now know:

2 curtain rods were found at a location other than the Paine garage; the find was deemed of sufficient importance for the 2 rods to be tested as to whether they bore Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

If you dispute this, I look forward to hearing a logical explanation from you for the fact that 2 curtain rods were submitted to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section on March 15!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 04:00:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

One thing we do now know:

2 curtain rods were found at a location other than the Paine garage; the find was deemed of sufficient importance for the 2 rods to be tested as to whether they bore Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

If you dispute this, I look forward to hearing a logical explanation from you for the fact that 2 curtain rods were submitted to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section on March 15!  Thumb1:

A false, unproven premise.  According to Ruth Paine, the curtain rods in question were taken from her garage where they had been since the assassination.  There is zero evidence that they came from the TSBD or anywhere else much less that anyone "knows" this.   That is a fantasy that you have concocted as a fact in your own mind.  The explanation for checking them for prints is obvious and has been already explained multiple times.  Oswald used the curtain rods as a cover story to retrieve his rifle.  So the authorities did the obvious thing and checked the only curtain rods that they found.  No great mystery.  If you believe, however, that Oswald handled these curtain rods and took them to the TSBD, explain to us why his prints weren't on them and why the authorities involved in his frame up would bring them to light in March, and how they forced Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage.  An opportunity for you to make up another story.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 04:08:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A false, unproven premise.  According to Ruth Paine, the curtain rods in question were taken from her garage where they had been since the assassination.

More weasel words from Mr Smith!  :D

Let's offer the agenda-free version!:

According to Ruth Paine, the curtain rods in question had lain in her garage since the assassination; she gave her permission to the WC for them to be removed and placed on the record; accordingly, they were removed during the WC on-the-record visit to her home on March 23.

Let's add an important observation:

March 15 comes before March 23! Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 07, 2019, 04:54:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More weasel words from Mr Smith!  :D

Let's offer the agenda-free version!:

According to Ruth Paine, the curtain rods in question had lain in her garage since the assassination; she gave her permission to the WC for them to be removed and placed on the record; accordingly, they were removed during the WC on-the-record visit to her home on March 23.

Let's add an important observation:

March 15 comes before March 23! Thumb1:

Congrats.  You have solved a mystery of your own creation. Read the part about Ruth Paine and the curtain rods again.  Try to understand how this is inconsistent with your claim about them being found elsewhere.  Your fixation on the dates is strange.  Do you believe no one ever knew or could have known from Paine prior to March 15 that there were curtain rods in her garage?  You are unwilling to accept that they could be removed and checked for prints and then returned for the March 23 session at her home but entertain a wild outlandish fantasy narrative that would accompany their being found in the TSBD, hidden, uncovered again for some unknown reason, and Paine lying about all this from some inexplicable reason? 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:11:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes.

For what purpose?  Just dramatic effect?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:18:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No one ever made any such claim.  Oswald was asked about his lunch.  Frazier clearly, and in multiple instances in his testimony confirms that Oswald did not have a lunch that morning.  There is no ambiguity on that point.  Take it up with Oswald if you don't like the facts: 


"I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Just because Frazier said that Oswald told him something, that doesn't automatically make it factual.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:22:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Excuse me, but how are curtain rods found in the garage owned by the Paines, which is where the rods you cited were found, evidence that Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work, to the TSBD?

How do we know that these curtain rods were really found in the garage owned by the Paines?  Especially when they were found after they were found.

Quote
And for what it's worth, here is a photo of Oswald's room on the eve of the assassination. The rods appear to me to be fine:

Who had the foresight to take a picture of Oswald's room the night before the assassination?

Also for what it's worth, here's a picture of Mrs. Johnson putting up curtain rods in Oswald's room after the assassination.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5EzGXCrrIQs/U3iNuSeXBiI/AAAAAAAA0Cs/enOSCvythBw/s1600/LHO-Room.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:26:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ruth Paine's testimony was taken on March 23 AT HER HOME.  Paine had made reference to them a week earlier.  During the course of that testimony she confirmed that the curtain rods were still in her garage.  They were never in the TSBD.  That is crooked John-like logic.  It seems obvious why they might be tested for Oswald's prints.  His cover story for making the unexpected trip to get his rifle involved - wait for it - curtain rods.  So they were tested and Oswald had never touched them.

That doesn't mean he had never touched them.  That's crooked "Richard" logic.

As was the case with the chicken bag and soda bottle, if something didn't have Oswald's prints on it, they weren't interested.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:32:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Captain Fritz testified that there were no curtain rods found in the depository (4H218).

Here's what Fritz actually said:

Mr. FRITZ. I hesitated to ask him about those curtain rods and I will tell you why I hesitated, because I wanted to find out more about that package before I got started with the curtain rods because if there were curtain rods I didn't want to mention it to him but we couldn't find--I talked to his wife and asked her if they were going to use any curtain rods, while I was talking to her that afternoon and she didn't know anything about it.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Oswald's best defense was to lie about carrying a long bag that he knew Frazier and possibly others would confirm he had when it contained only curtain rods and his lunch! And it was still laying around somewhere in the TSBD to be found to assist him.

Who says it was still laying around somewhere in the TSBD to be found to assist him?  You haven't even demonstrated that it was EVER in the TSBD.

Quote
  LOL.  That is your theory as to why he lied?  It was in his interest that the bag be found if it contained curtain rods and not a rifle.  In your bizarre theory, however, Oswald is lying against his own self-interest.  The first criminal to lie himself into trouble instead of out of it.  And the DPD involved in the frame up find the curtain rods, hide them until March, convince Ruth Paine to lie under oath, and then suddenly bring them to light for no apparent reason to blow their own frame up!   Wow.  Great story.

Your strawmen usually are.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:39:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Mr Chapman can't answer..
>>> You got my answer

Yeah, your "answer" was to accuse him of claiming "sinister intent" when he did nothing of the kind.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2019, 05:45:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Congrats.  You have solved a mystery of your own creation. Read the part about Ruth Paine and the curtain rods again.  Try to understand how this is inconsistent with your claim about them being found elsewhere.  Your fixation on the dates is strange.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 06:08:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.

Indeed so, Mr Iacoletti-------poor Mr Smith will believe any number of absurdities before he will even begin to question the official story!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 06:46:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Reason I ask is, in a little while we're going to get this:

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
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.)


Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Friends, there is a pretty simple explanation for why Mr Jenner decided to start at what otherwise looks like an entirely random number: 270...

(https://i.imgur.com/gFE2a0U.jpg)

Why not just start at 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 1'----as had been the policy with 'PaineMichael Exhibit No. 1'?

Because Agent Howlett had told Mr Jenner he needed to contrive a way of naming the 2 curtain rods 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276' .

Why would this have been important?

Because of this notation in the Crime Scene Search Section document (which Agent Howlett had signed):

(https://i.imgur.com/DpPQ9GY.jpg)

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' eight days before the 2 curtain rods were formally designated as such!

Agent Howlett noticed Lieutenant Day's notation when signing the document and decided to establish a link between the curtain rods he had given to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting and the curtain rods he was to 'find' in the Paine garage!

For Mr Jenner to start at 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 275' by heading straight for the curtain rods in the garage on March 23 would have been a little too obvious. Much better to start at 270 and work one's way, as though by happenstance, to the magic numbers 275 and 276 by the time the 2 curtain rods were to be entered as exhibits:

(https://i.imgur.com/TlqaCLW.jpg)

This also explains why the curtain rods could not be entered as a single exhibit!

Contrast the brisk efficiency of:

(https://i.imgur.com/WI6KjGH.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 06:48:22 PM
Now!

Why did Lieutenant Day write of the 2 curtains received on 15 March that they were "marked 275 & 276"?

I believe there may be a very simple explanation!  Thumb1:

He saw the digits 2-7-5 written (in pencil?) on one of the curtain rods, and 2-7-6 written on the other-------and simply wrote down what he saw.

But!

These digits did not refer to any assigned item-of-evidence number or anything like that.

No!

They gave the length of each curtain rod when measured carefully:
27.5 inches, 27.6 inches!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 06:49:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do try to keep up, Mr Galbraith!  ::)

The curtain rods found in the garage were found on the evening of 23 March 1964.

The curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett were submitted on 15 March 1964 and not released until 24 March 1964.

Do you accept that 15 March 1964 fell before 23 March 1964?

And that 23 March 1964 fell before 24 March 1964?

If so, what is your explanation for this curious circumstance?

And while you're there:

Why would 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage be fingerprinted for a match with Mr Oswald's? What would be the point exactly? Was he suspected of excessive interest in home improvement?

 Thumb1:

Alan, you do not indicate you are interested in posting a truthful response, or (your) analysis. I presented to you the official record, ce1952.
You demonstrate you cannot "go there". In fact, you ignored, and now contradict the return date, March 26, displayed on the
official record, ce1952. You are not behaving sincerely and not worth the time to interact with. What would be the point of
expending even another minute with you? Your mind is as closed as a sprung trap!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anybody else see what I noticed? I dislike speculation, but how is it avoided, now? Is 3/15/64 an error, vs. 3/25/64? Was an attempt
made to correct the return date, from 3/24 to 3/26 ?
How will these dates ever be resolved, to the delight of all interested parties?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
(http://jfkdebate.com/images/CurtainRodsCE1952.jpg)
Cropped close-ups:
...................
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 06:58:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, you do not indicate you are interested in posting a truthful response, or (your) analysis. I presented to you the official record, ce1952.
You demonstrate you cannot "go there". In fact, you ignored, and now contradict the return date, March 26, displayed on the
official record, ce1952. You are not behaving sincerely and not worth the time to interact with. What would be the point of
expending even another minute with you? Your mind is as closed as a sprung trap!

On the contrary, Mr Scully, I ignored your post because it merely drew attention to something to which I had already drawn attention several pages earlier.

Not my fault that you hadn't bothered to read the thread properly before jumping in!

To save you the chore of going through the thread-----------you evidently have no interest in doing that--------------here's what I posted on page 14:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

Compare and contrast, if you will...

(https://i.imgur.com/DBary KampoO26.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/aEKJHmJ.jpg)

For ease of cross-reference!:

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)

 ???

You're welcome, Mr Scully!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 07:20:10 PM
I have difficulty reading entire 25 pages of threads I see no practical purpose of. I should ignore them completely.

I am welcome?

I'll double down on my last post....you really are insincere. Sincere is the pursuit of verifiable facts, ideally with an open mind.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
.......]

As a taster, ask yourself the question:

How can Lieutenant Day have released the curtain rods twice
-----------first to Agent Howlett on March 23
-----------second to A. N. Other on March 26?

 ???

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good to see your new hero, Ms Davison, is teaching you well, Mr Scully!  Thumb1:

Unfortunately, however, Davisonian waffle won't get you out of this.

The dates are not in the least murky:

------------Agent Howlett submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant J. C. Day on March 15
------------Lieutenant J. C. Day released the 2 curtain rods back to Agent Howlett on March 24.

 Thumb1:

Your rules.... quote Jean Davison, a sweet, very bright person with a similar deficit you exhibit, a bias,
and one has married her? I had no use for her until I got to know her considering her comments for approval
at jfkfacts.org. I probably agree with you more often than I agree with her, but she seems more sincere than you do.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 12:22:06 AM
Now!

From Ms Paine's testimony before the Warren Commission, Washington, 19 March 1964:

Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which?
Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a conversation with Michael as to whether he did or didn't look?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Why was he looking to see if the curtain rod package was there?
Mrs. PAINE - He was particularly interested in the wrapping, was the wrapping still there, the brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - When did this take place?
Mrs. PAINE - After the assassination, perhaps a week or so later, perhaps when one of the FBI people were out; I don't really recall.
Mr. JENNER - And was the package with the curtain rods found on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - It is my recollection it was.


So!

Ms Paine cannot confirm that the package with the curtain rods was found in her garage within a week or so of the assassination.

The farthest she is willing to go is that such is her "recollection".

Given that Mr Frazier had from Day 1 been quoting Mr Oswald to the effect that
-----------the purpose of his trip to Irving on the Thursday night had been to pick up curtain rods
-----------he had curtain rods in the large bulky bag he brought to work on the Friday morning,
there were two competing explanations in the air for what was in the bag:

1. A disassembled rifle
2. Curtain rods.

Naturally the DPD and/or FBI would have made it their business to verify a.s.a.p. that Ms Paine's curtain rods were still in her garage, yes?

Naturally the fact of the rods' continued presence in the garage would have been duly noted as strong evidence that what Mr Oswald had allegedly told Mr Frazier was a flat lie, yes?

Question!

Is there any official record from prior to the Paines' testimony in March 1964 confirming that her curtain rods were still in the garage?

Another way of asking this question:

Is this the first official reference we find in the documentary record to verified, actually existing curtain rods?:

(https://i.imgur.com/x8viHx0.jpg)

Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 01:41:03 AM
Friends! Unbelievable as it may sound, the latter half of March 64 seems to have been the first time those charged with investigating the case took a serious interest in curtain rods!

15 March: Agent Howlett submits 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant Day in the DPD Crime Scene Search Section

17 March: Mr Michael Paine is asked about curtain rods in the Irving garage

19 March: Ms Ruth Paine is asked about curtain rods in the Irving garage

23 March: Two curtain rods are inspected and removed from the Irving garage by Agent Howlett (!)

24 March: Agent Howlett receives two fingerprinted curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day (!!)

26 March: An unnamed party receives two fingerprinted curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day (!!!)


Now!

At the tail end of all this curtain rod business, the FBI finally------4 months after the assassination!-------think to pay Ms Gladys Johnson a visit at Mr Oswald's rooming house to talk to her about (you guessed it) curtain rods:

(https://i.imgur.com/6FFenAg.jpg)

The point of this visit? To establish that Mr Oswald had no need of, or permission to mount, curtain rods in his rented apartment.

So!

Before 15 March? Radio silence. (If I'm wrong about this, friends, please put me right by pointing me to pre-March 15 evidence on Ms Paine's curtain rods!  Thumb1: )

After 15 March? The curtain rods have become an issue that needs addressing.

This is what I think happened:

1. The Paine garage is searched after the assassination and it is quickly established that curtain rods that once were there are there no longer

2. This fact is not allowed to make it onto the record: the issue of Ms Paine's curtain rods is turned into a non-issue

3. At some point prior to 15 March, two curtain rods turn up----not in the Paine garage, but at another location germane to the case

4. These two curtain rods are sent for fingerprinting in order to establish whether Mr Oswald's prints are on them

5. The location at which the rods were found, as well as their match with the missing curtain rods described by Ms Paine, prompts a bold decision:

6. The lost-but-now-found Paine curtain rods are to be hidden in plain sight by being turned into 2 curtain rods that were in the Paine garage all along.

If this is indeed what happened, then the curtain rods laughably designated 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276', and currently housed in the National Archives----------

(https://i.imgur.com/D4iPrO6.jpg)

----------are the very curtain rods which Mr Oswald brought to work in a long package on the morning of the assassination!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 02:08:30 AM
Ah yes, the ever-dependable Mr Truly!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/P12Eeml.jpg)

Way to tie up the bow, boys!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 08, 2019, 05:44:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, not understanding your seeming enthusiasm/excitement ....

Congrats to you Tom, at least for having the research skills to find anything that referenced this first! You managed to beat the sheep (not surprising really).

However, the McAdams attempted rebuttal, in part using Davidson is somewhat lacking and not so well researched as it claims. The attempt to used testimony of Howlett is incorrect as I could find nothing that related to the rods in his two pages referenced (424 and 425).

Below are the relevant dates and testimonies of Ruth and Michael as far as I could find......

Ruth Paine in Washington From Saturday March 21 ? Continuation of testimony taken Friday 19th March

Mr. JENNER - Now, that morning--if I may, Mr. Chairman, because of the entry of the police, that is a good cutoff point, I would like to go back to the morning for the moment, or the evening before. Mrs. Paine, did you then have what might be called some curtain rods in your garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe there were.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have a recollection?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they were stored in the garage, wrapped in loose brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - Is it the brown paper of the nature and character you described yesterday that you get at the market and have in a roll?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Had you wrapped that package yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, curtain rods can be of various types. One type of curtain rod, as I remember, is a solid brass rod. Others are hollow. Some are shaped. Would you describe these curtain rods, please?
Mrs. PAINE - They were a light weight.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me; do you still have them?
Mrs. PAINE - I still have them.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - Metal rods that you slip the curtain over, not with a ring but just with the cloth itself, and they are expansion rods.
Mr. JENNER - Are they flat on one side?
Mrs. PAINE - They are flat on one side; about an inch wide and about a quarter of an inch thick.
Mr. JENNER - And assume we are holding the rod horizontally, do the edges of the rod slip over?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Did you wrap these rods in the paper? Had you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Sometime previously I had.
Senator COOPER - How long before?
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, possibly a year.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - Possibly a year.
Senator COOPER - As far as you know, they had never been changed?
Mrs. PAINE - Moved about, but not changed.
Senator COOPER - Can you just describe the length?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - The length of the rods, at the time you wrapped them.
Mrs. PAINE - They would be 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - They would be about maybe 36 inches when pushed together.
Senator COOPER - You remember wrapping them. Do you remember what the size, the length of the rods were at the time you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - How long?
Mrs. PAINE - Didn't I answer about 36 inches?
Mr. JENNER - In other words, you pushed them together so that then, they were then their minimum length, unexpanded?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - They were not extended, and in that condition they were 36 inches long?
Mrs. PAINE - Something like that.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Mr. JENNER - These were lightweight metal?
Mrs. PAINE - Very. Now, there was another item that was both heavier and longer.
Mr. JENNER - In that same package?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I don't think so. In another similar package wrapped up just to keep the dust off were two venetian blinds. I guess they were not longer, more like 36 inches also, that had come from the two windows in my bedroom. I took them down to change, and put up pull blinds in their place.
Mr. JENNER - And had you wrapped them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - How many were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Mr. JENNER - And what was their length?
Mrs. PAINE - I think around 36 inches. The width of these windows in the back bedroom.
Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which?
Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a conversation with Michael as to whether he did or didn't look?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Why was he looking to see if the curtain rod package was there?
Mrs. PAINE - He was particularly interested in the wrapping, was the wrapping still there, the brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - When did this take place?
Mrs. PAINE - After the assassination, perhaps a week or so later, perhaps when one of the FBI people were out; I don't really recall.
Mr. JENNER - And was the package with the curtain rods found on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - It is my recollection it was.
Mr. JENNER - What about the venetian blind package?
Mrs. PAINE - Still there, still wrapped.
Mr. JENNER - You are fully conscious of the fact that that package is still there?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief the other package, likewise, is there?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Let me ask a question there. After the assassination, at anytime did you go into the garage and look to see if both of these packages were there?
Mrs. PAINE - A week and a half, or a week later.
Senator COOPER - At any time?
Mrs. PAINE - Did I, personally?
Senator COOPER - Have you seen these packages since the assassination?
Mrs. PAINE - It seems to me I recall seeing a package.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall opening it up and looking in carefully. I seem to recall seeing the package
Senator COOPER - Both of them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Or just one?
Mrs. PAINE - Both.
Senator COOPER - Did you feel them to see if the rods were in there?
Mrs. PAINE - No. I think Michael did, but I am not certain.
Senator COOPER - But you never did, yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not my most pressing--
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not the most pressing thing I had to do at that time.
Senator COOPER - I know that. But you must have read after the assassination the story about Lee Oswald saying, he told Mr. Frazier, I think, that he was carrying some curtain rods in the car?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Do you remember reading that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I remember reading that.
Senator COOPER - Didn't that lead you-Did it lead you then to go in and see if the curtain rods were there?
Mrs. PAINE - It was all I could do at that point to answer my door, answer my telephone, and take care of my children.
Senator COOPER - I understand you had many things to do.
Mrs. PAINE - So I did not.
Senator COOPER - You never did do it?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not certain whether I specifically went in and checked on that. I recall a conversation with Michael about it and, to the best of my recollection, things looked as I expected to find them looking out there. This package with brown paper was still there.
Mr. JENNER - By any chance, does that package appear in the photograph that you have identified of the interior of your garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I think it is this that is on a shelf almost to the ceiling.
Mr. JENNER - May I get over here, Mr. Chairman?
Mrs. PAINE - Along the west edge of the garage, up here.
Mr. JENNER - In view of this, I think it is of some importance that you mark on Commission Exhibit 429 what appears to you to be the package in which the curtain rods were.
Mrs. PAINE - To the best of my recollection.
Mr. JENNER - Now the witness has by an arrow indicated a shelf very close to the ceiling in the rear of the garage, and an arrow pointing to what appears to be a long package on that shelf, underneath which she has written "Wrapping paper around venetian blinds"--
Mrs. PAINE - "And thin."
Mr. JENNER - What is the next word?
Mrs. PAINE - "Curtain rods."
Mr. JENNER - There were two packages, Mrs. Paine, one with the rods and one with the venetian blinds?
Mrs. PAINE - I can't recall. The rods were so thin they hardly warranted a package of their own, but that is rationalization, as you call it.
Mr. JENNER - You do have a recollection that those rods were a very lightweight metal?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Do you?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. They were not round.
Mr. JENNER - They were flat and slender?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - They were not at all heavy?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.
Mr. JENNER - They were curved? Were they curved in any respect?
Mrs. PAINE - They curved at the ends to attach to the bracket that held them up on the wall.
Mr. JENNER - May I use the chalk on the board, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it might be better for you, Mrs. Paine, so I don't influence you. Would you draw a picture of the rods?
Mrs. PAINE - You are looking down from the top. It attaches here, well, over a loop thing on the wall. Looking from the inside, it curves over a slight bit, and then this is recessed.
Mr. JENNER - I am going to have to have you do that over on a sheet of paper. Will you remain standing for the moment. We will give it an exhibit number. But I would like to have you proceed there. What did you say this was, in the lower diagram?
Mrs. PAINE - You are looking down.
Mr. JENNER - Now, where was the break?
Mrs. PAINE - The break?
Mr. JENNER - You said they were extension.
Mrs. PAINE - That is right. When they are up on the window, it would be like that.
Mr. JENNER - You have drawn a double line to indicate what would be seen if you were looking down into the U-shape of the rod?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - The double line indicates what on either side?
Mrs. PAINE - That the lightweight metal, white, turned over, bent around, something less than a quarter of an inch on each side.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you be good enough to make the same drawing. We will mark that sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 449 upon which the witness is now drawing the curtain rod.
(Commission Exhibit No. 449 was marked for identification.)
Mr. JENNER - While you are doing that, Mrs. Paine, would you be good enough when you return to Irving, Tex., to see if those rods are at hand, and some of our men are going to be in Irving next week. We might come out and take a look at them, and perhaps you might surrender them to us.
Mrs. PAINE - You are perfectly welcome to them.
Mr. JENNER - Would you in that connection, Mrs. Paine do not open the package until we arrive?
Mrs. PAINE - I won't even look, then.
Mr. JENNER - All right. Now, would you mark "A" in the upper elevation and "B" in the lower elevation. The elevation in the drawing you have indicated as "A" is a depiction of what?
Mrs. PAINE - The curtain rod, as you might look at it from the top when it is hanging in its position, when it is placed in position on the window.
Mr. JENNER - And "B"?
Mrs. PAINE - "B" is as it might appear if you could look at it from outside the house; the window.
Mr. JENNER - While the rod was in place?
Mrs. PAINE - While the rod was in place.
Mr. JENNER - You have written to the left-hand side "Place at which it attaches to wall fixture," indicating the butt end of the curved side of the rod?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And the two oblongs, each of which you have put at the ends of depiction "B," represent the upturned ends of the fixtures at each end?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.
Mr. JENNER - Would you put a little line as to where the break was in the rod.
I offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, as Commission Exhibit No. 449 the drawing that the witness has just made, and about which she has testified.
Senator COOPER - It will be admitted as part of the evidence.
(Commission Exhibit No. 449 was received in evidence.)
Mr. JENNER - Had there been any conversation between you and Lee Oswald, or between you and Marina, or any conversation taking place in your presence prior to this occasion, in which the subject of curtain rods was mentioned?
Mrs. PAINE - No; there was no such conversation.
Mr. JENNER - Was the subject of curtain rods--had that ever been mentioned during all of these weekends that Lee Oswald had come to your home, commencing, I think you said, with his first return on October 4, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - It. had not been mentioned.
Mr. JENNER - Never by anybody?
Mrs. PAINE - By anybody.
Mr. JENNER - Had the subject of curtain rods been mentioned even inadvertently, let us say, by some neighbor talking about the subject, as to whether you had some curtain rods you weren't using?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - That might be loaned? I think you had testified that the curtain rods, when unextended, were 36 inches long, approximately?
Mrs. PAINE - That is a guess. I would say, thinking further about it, it must be shorter than that. One went over a window that I am pretty sure was 30 inches wide, and one went over a window that was 42 inches wide, so it had to extend between these. They were identical, and had served at these different windows.
Mr. JENNER - The rods were identical in length when unextended?
Mrs. PAINE - Or when fully extended; yes.
Mr. JENNER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - Or when fully extended.
Mr. JENNER - Or when fully extended; yes. They could be extended to as great as 42 inches?
Mrs. PAINE - At least that. I am just saying what windows they were used for.
Mr. JENNER - If the rods are still available, we will be able to obtain them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And we will know exactly their length, extended and unextended. Now, as you think further about it, the rods when not extended, that is, when pushed together, might be but 30 inches long?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Because you recall that you have a 30-inch-wide window.
Mrs. PAINE - I believe it is more that width than 36.
Mr. JENNER - Would you hold up your hands to indicate what you think the width or the length of the rods is when not extended?
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, I don't recall. Maybe like this.
Mr. JENNER - Would you measure that, Mr. Liebeler, please?
Mr. LIEBELER - About 28 inches.
Mr. JENNER - I intend to leave the subject of the curtain rods, gentlemen, if you have any questions
Mr. McCLOY - May I ask a question. Did the FBI question you about the curtain rods any, or the Dallas police officials?
Mrs. PAINE - Not the Dallas police.
Mr. McCLOY - Not the Dallas police?
Mrs. PAINE - No. It is possible the FBI did. I don't recall such question.
Mr. McCLOY - They didn't take any rods from the garage that you are aware of?
Mrs. PAINE - You are aware what the police took. I never did know exactly what they took. I have never heard any mention of the rods having left.
Mr. McCLOY - You are not conscious of the Dallas police ever talking to you about curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - Absolutely no.
Mr. McCLOY - But possibly some member of the FBI did?
Mrs. PAINE - Possibly. I can't recall.
Mr. McCLOY - You can't recall?
Mr. JENNER - Did you ever mention to the FBI anything, or anybody else up until recently, the existence of the curtain rods about which you have now testified?
Mrs. PAINE - I have already said Michael and I discussed it.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - A week or two after the assassination would be my guess.
Mr. JENNER - And did you discuss those particular curtain rods about which you have now testified?
Mrs. PAINE - We were particularly interested in seeing if the wrapping paper that we used to wrap these things was there, and it was. I recall that.
Representative FORD - Did Lee Oswald know where you kept this roll of wrapping paper?
Mrs. PAINE - To the best of my knowledge, he did not know where I kept it.
I had never wrapped something when he was around. Neither he nor Marina had ever asked to use this paper or the string that I had.
Representative FORD - Where did you keep it? I don't recall precisely.
Mrs. PAINE - I can be very clear. There is a picture here of a large secretary desk on Commission Exhibit No. 435. It is in the bottom drawer, you see, in that desk. This is not the secretary desk upon which--
Mr. JENNER - The note was found?
Mrs. PAINE - The note was found.
Representative FORD - You kept it in the lower drawer?
Mrs. PAINE - Along with some gum tape and string.
Representative FORD - And this is the section shown on Commission Exhibit 435?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.
Mr. JENNER - Mr. Reporter, you caught the measurement by Mr. Liebeler, 28 inches. Mrs. Paine, what is your best recollection as to how many curtain rods there were?
Mrs. PAINE - Two, I am certain.
Mr. JENNER - Just two? And you wrapped the package yourself, did you?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - When you and Michael undertook your discussion about curtain rods, did you or did he open up this package?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER - Is it your present best recollection that as far as you know, the package, as far as wrapping is concerned, is in the same condition now as when you wrapped it initially?
Mrs. PAINE - Certainly very similar.
Senator COOPER - What was the answer?
Mrs. PAINE - Certainly very similar. I don't recall making any change.
Mr. JENNER - Is there a possibility that the package was unwrapped at anytime?
Mrs. PAINE - In connection with this inquiry of Michael's; yes.
Mr. JENNER - You think he might have but you don't know.
Mrs. PAINE - Or I might have. I don't recall. I recall that it wasn't something that interested me as much as the other things I had to get done.
Mr. JENNER - But the rods about which you have testified as far as you know are on the shelf in your garage at your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall whether when the FBI discussed this subject with you, if you can recall that, that you advised the FBI of these particular curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not perfectly certain that they discussed it with me.
Mr. JENNER - You just have no recollection of any interview with the FBI on this particular subject?
Mrs. PAINE - It seems to me they brought it up, but I don't recall the content nor whether they went out. I certainly think I would remember if I had gone out to the garage with an FBI representative.
Mr. JENNER - But you do not?
Mrs. PAINE - But I do not remember such an occasion.
Mr. JENNER - Unless the members of the Commission have any further questions with respect to the curtain rods, I will return to the afternoon.
Senator COOPER - I want to ask just two questions. Before the assassination, did you know where the package with the curtain rods in it was situated within the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I gave it no attention but yes, it is my impression that I did go out to see if things were where I expected to find them. They were wrapped in brown paper, the curtain rods and venetian blinds. And found things there. I don't recall that I looked into the package.
Mr. JENNER - You did find the package?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - What was the size of the package in length and width if you can remember at the time you wrapped it?
Mrs. PAINE - I suppose about like this, not closed but just wrapping paper folded over.
Mr. JENNER - Would you hold your hands there please.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. But by no means a neat package, just enough to keep the dust off.
Mr. LIEBELER - Thirty-two and a half inches.
Senator COOPER - What was the width of the package?
Mrs. PAINE - Like so.
Senator COOPER - That you wrapped?
Mrs. PAINE - Now I am not certain. I am really thinking now of the package with the venetian blind.- I don't recall exactly the package with the rods, whether they were included in this other or whether they warranted a package of their own.
Mr. LIEBELER - The witness indicated a width of approximately 7 1/2 inches.
Senator COOPER - I will ask one other question. The ends of the rod which are at right angles to the long surface, how long? What is their approximate size?
Mrs. PAINE - Two and a half inches to three inches.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - Two and a half to three inches.

Monday March 23rd At the Paine Residence, Irving

Mr. Jenner.
Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. Paine.
Yes--as you recall.
Mr. Jenner.
You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. Paine.
I have not touched it.
Mr. Jenner.
And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, would you rise and enter the garage and point out in my presence and in the presence of Mr. Howlett where that package is?
(At this point the persons heretofore mentioned entered the garage as stated by Counsel Jenner.)
Mrs. Paine.
It is on a shelf above the workbench. It extends north of the north edge of the workbench.
Mr. Jenner.
Is it the thicker of the two packages wrapped in brown wrapping paper, shorter and thicker?
Mrs. Paine.
You would do well to look at them both.
Mr. Jenner.
Well, what I am going to do first--I'm going to hand you a pointer, and would you point to the package-that you have in mind?
Mrs. Paine.
This, to the best of my recollection, contains venetian blinds.
Mr. Jenner.
The witness is now referring to a package which Mr. Howlett, and I will ask you to measure it in a moment, but which appears to me to be at most about 28 inches long, maybe 30, and about 6 1/2 inches high and about 6 1/2 inches through.
While it is still wrapped in place, Mr. Howlett, would you measure the package and it is a little bit irregular.
Agent HOWLETT. That is 2 feet 11 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
The package is 2 feet 11 inches long and it is resting on a shelf which is apparently a foot down from the ceiling, and the north edge of the package is 5 inches from the outer wall of the storeroom I have described, and Mr. Howlett has--now measured the distance from the shelf on which the package is resting, to the floor, and that is what distance?
Agent HOWLETT. Seven feet and three inches.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, measure the height of the package.
Mrs. Paine.
.While you are up there, measure the one behind you.
Mr. Jenner.
Yes; we will.
Agent HOWLETT. The height of the package is about seven inches.
Mr. Jenner.
And it is how thick through from east to west?
Agent HOWLETT. Seven inches.
Mr. Jenner.
All right. Now, I'll ask Mr. Howlett to take the package down, since he is already up there on top of the bench, and we will open it in the presence of Mrs. Paine and see what it contains.
The package has now been taken down from the shelf in our presence and Mrs. Paine is opening it. Mrs. Paine, and in your presence, Mr. Howlett, what does the package contain?
Mrs. Paine.
It contains two venetian blinds, both of them are 2 feet 6 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
And they are of the metal variety, are they not?
Mrs. Paine.
They are.
Mr. Jenner.
And those blinds are 2 feet 6 inches wide?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, they are wrapped in brown or light-tan wrapping paper?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
Did you have a supply of this particular wrapping paper around your home at that time?
Mrs. Paine.
No.
Mr. Jenner.
From where did you obtain this wrapping paper?
Mrs. Paine.
This must have come around a package or something I had bought. I have never had a supply of this variety.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, John Joe, will you favor Mrs. Paine by putting her package back the way it was?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes--for the record.
Mr. Jenner.
For the record, when we sought to rewrap the package, it has a paster on the outside of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Dallas, No. 4017, and "Will call--M.R. Paine."
Mr. Jenner.
Mrs. Paine has torn from the package some sticky tape.
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
It is wider than the variety we have heretofore identified--is it your recollection that this sticky tape came on this particular package when it was delivered to your home?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
And is this paper the paper in which the blinds came in the first instance?
Mrs. Paine.
These blinds did not come to me from Sears, Roebuck, but that--I used to replace them did. Now, whether the shades I bought came in this package, I have no idea whatever.
Mr. Jenner.
Well, is it your recollection that this paper in which the blinds are now wrapped came from another package that was delivered to you and not a part of a general supply of paper which you had in your home?
Mrs. Paine.
It was certainly not part of a general supply of paper.
Mr. Jenner.
Is it your recollection that the sticky tape that appears on this wrapping was affixed to the package which this is?
Mrs. Paine.
As you said, yes.
Mr. Jenner.
This paper--when delivered to your home, having nothing to do with the curtain rods or the rifle or anything else hereon, is that right?
Mrs. Paine.
That's right.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, we see in back of this package that we have just described a much longer package also wrapped on--in light-tan wrapping paper--at this time a little bit darker, I think, than the package we have just been describing, and Mr. Howlett has now mounted again the work bench and is measuring that package. That package, Mr. Howlett, is also on the shelf.
Agent HOWLETT. The same shelf in behind where the other package was.
Mr. Jenner.
And it is how long?
Agent HOWLETT. Three feet nine inches long, as it is folded now.
Mr. Jenner.
And in general is it a rectangular package?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenner.
But its shape is not as well defined as the shorter package we have already described?
Agent HOWLETT. No, sir; it seems to be a little bit bigger at the north end.
Mr. Jenner.
Mrs. Paine, before we open it, what is in that package?
Mrs. Paine.
My best guess would be that it contains two pull blinds which I did have in the southeast bedroom.
Mr. Jenner.
When you say "pull blinds" you mean venetian blinds?
Mrs. Paine.
No; I do not. I mean roll-type.
Mr. Jenner.
Mr. Howlett, would you be good enough to take that package down and we will open it in Mrs. Paine's presence here.
(At this point Agent Howlett complied with the request of Counsel Jenner.)
Mr. Jenner.
It contains, does it not, what you call the pull blinds, and which I, in my vernacular call spring window shades.
Mrs. Paine.
All, right, that's correct, and these are cut to fit the windows in the southeast bedroom.
Mr. Jenner.
Mr. Howlett, there are two of them, one of which is how wide?
Agent HOWLETT. Two feet six inches.
Mr. Jenner.
And the other one is?
Agent HOWLETT. Three feet six inches.
Mr. Jenner.
And Mr. Howlett and Mrs. Paine, these two spring window-shades are the customary type we see on windows, these, however, are white or cream colored, and are plastic?
Mrs. Paine.
That's right.
Mr. Jenner.
And they are opaque?
Mrs. Paine.
That's right.
Mr. Jenner.
Neither is metal?
Mrs. Paine.
No.
Mr. Jenner.
The spring to which the shade itself the plastic shade is attached, is wood, inside of which there is the usual window shade spring.
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
The paper in which these are wrapped likewise contains as did
Mr. Jenner.
the other one an address sticker of Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 4017, addressed to Michael R. Paine.
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
And so, the wrapping paper in which those two shades are wrapped came from Sears, Roebuck & Co. and not from any roll of paper that you keep in your home?
Mrs. Paine.
That's correct.
Mr. Jenner. Now, are there any other paper-wrapped packages on that shelf?
Mrs. Paine.
No.
Mr. Jenner.
It was your impression as you testified last week that you had some curtain rods on the shelf wrapped in a paper wrapping?
Mrs. Paine.
Well, I testified that.
Mr. Jenner.
That was your impression, was it not?
Mrs. Paine.
And as part of the testimony I said they were very light and might not deserve their own wrapping.
Mr. Jenner.
You, of course you did state it was possible they might not be separately wrapped?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
Is there another shelf below the shelf on which you found the first two packages?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes; there is.
Mr. Jenner.
And, Mr. Howlett, that shelf is about how far below the upper one on which we found the two packages?
Agent HOWLETT. About 10 1/2 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. Paine.
That's correct.
Mr. Jenner.
Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. Jenner.
Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenner.
Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT. There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, would you please search the rest of that shelf and see if you can find any other curtain rods or anything similar to the curtain rods, and look on the bottom shelves, Mr. Howlett, will you please?
While he is doing that, Mrs. Paine, I notice there is on your garage floor what looks like a file casing you have for documents similar, at least it seems substantially identical to those that we had in Washington last week.
Mrs. Paine.
This is a filing case similar, yes, slightly different in color to one that you had in Washington. It contains madrigal music. It was on November 22 at the apartment where my husband was living.
Agent HOWLETT. I have just finished searching both shelves and I don't find any other curtain rods.
Mr. Jenner.
Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves, the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?
Mrs. Paine.
Yes; they are.
Mr. Jenner.
And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?
Mrs. Paine.
No; I do not.
Mr. Jenner.
And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage at any time on the 21st or 22d of November 1963?
Mrs. Paine.
None whatsoever.
Mr. Jenner.
May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. Paine.
All right.
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.)
Mr. Jenner.
Since we will have the exact physical exhibits we don't have to measure them, but perhaps for somebody who is reading the record, Mr. Howlett, your suggestion that we measure them is not a bad one. Let me describe the configuration of these rods. They are very light weight--what would you say that metal is, Mr. Howlett, tin--heavy tin?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenner.
They are the sliding or extension type, one fitting into the other when closed entirely, measuring from upended tip to upended tip they are----
Agent HOWLETT. The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT. It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
These curtain rods--the ends of each of them are turned. Those ends extending are turned up how many inches?
Agent HOWLETT. About 2 inches measuring from the inside of the curtain rod.
Mr. Jenner.
On the cream colored one, and what about the white one?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes; on the cream colored one and the white one measures about 2 1/2 inches.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, these curtain rods with the ends turned up form a "U," do they not, a long "U"?
Agent HOWLETT. Yes, sir.

Michael Paine Testimony, March 17, Washington

Mr. LIEBELER - Referring to 142. Now, examine after examining both 142 and 364, did you have any paper of that type as far as you know in your garage or at your home in Irving?
Mr. PAINE - Well, most of the things that are paper have been added to the garage since I moved out, so I am not very familiar with them. We stored some rugs in, I think, in polyethylene, but I am not sure all of them were in polyethylene, and there were some curtain rods or something like that which are still there. I don't know how they came.
Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of curtain rods?
Mr. PAINE - These expanding rods that are----
Mr. LIEBELER - And you have no idea where they came from?
Mr. PAINE - Let's see, no, those came down from--I think those were in the house, I guess they weren't bought. I think Ruth took them down because the children were allergic to something, and she was taking them down, took down the curtains, and left only shades. Bought shades, I guess, she bought curtain shades to go up, new shades. That is a question, well, of course, paper could have been--I don't remember any particular, I didn't have any rolls of this kind of paper or a supply of it, wrapping paper.
Mr. LIEBELER - Let's go back to the curtain rods for just a minute. You say they were in the house at the time in Irving when you purchased the house.
Mr. PAINE - Yes, curtain rods came to my mind recently because they are junk that I try to keep propped up on the shelves or above the work bench, and I think they were in our house and there were curtains on them and she took the curtains down to get rid of the fabric that might be holding dust and put up instead some new curtains, new window shades in the bedrooms.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately when did she do that, do you remember?
Mr. PAINE - You will have to ask Ruth herself. She put down a new floor, also, getting rid of the old rugs for the same purpose, and I thought it was in the fall, but I can't place when it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - In the fall of 1963?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you say the curtain rods are still in the garage?
Mr. PAINE - Yes, I think so.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how long are they?
Mr. PAINE - Well, I think this is, when they expand, I guess the curtain rods themselves are 32 1/2 inches to 3 feet, but the two of them slide together to make a pair, this expanding type just of rod metal.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how long are they, would you say, when they are fitted together and in their collapsed state or their----
Mr. PAINE - As I say, those came out of house or she would not have, I was trying to think of some of the paper she might have had that resembles this, but the thing she bought new would be the shades, the window shades to go in place of those curtain rods.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember seeing any paper in the garage that might have been a package in which those shades came?
Mr. PAINE - No, I don't recall any.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever have a conversation with your wife about these curtain rods in connection with the assassination?
Mr. PAINE - No. I think we did both read that he had said he was, to Frazier, that he was carrying, maybe it was curtain rods or something to do with windows in my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - But your wife didn't mention to you that Oswald ever mentioned to her anything about the curtains rods?
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, place yourself in the garage on or about November 21, 22, 1963, or shortly before that time, and tell me everything that you can remember as being in that garage.
Mr. PAINE - Well, there is a bench along, in front of, a fiberglass window panel. That bench is generally covered with boxes, there are boxes underneath that bench. On the end of the bench is a drill press. My recollection is confused by the fact I am much more familiar with it now that I have moved back and I have moved my stuff into that garage, so it is fuzzy in my memory.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you present on November 22 when the police or the FBI or any other authorities searched the garage?
Mr. PAINE - No, I wasn't.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 08, 2019, 06:05:49 AM
To me the initial interest of the Commission in Paine garage curtain rods begins here......

Mr. PAINE - Well, most of the things that are paper have been added to the garage since I moved out, so I am not very familiar with them. We stored some rugs in, I think, in polyethylene, but I am not sure all of them were in polyethylene, and there were some curtain rods or something like that which are still there. I don't know how they came.
Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of curtain rods?

One can almost envision Liebleler's ears prick up at this mention of curtain rods.

However, according to the official paperwork Howlett has already provided Day some curtain rods for processing two days previous to the conversation taking place.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 01:16:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, the McAdams attempted rebuttal, in part using Davidson is somewhat lacking and not so well researched as it claims. The attempt to used testimony of Howlett is incorrect as I could find nothing that related to the rods in his two pages referenced (424 and 425).


Right you are, Mr Crow!

The Davison response to the clearly written March 15 date? It's "an obvious error"!  :D

This tells us just how fundamentalist these Lone Nutters are when it comes to protecting the official story: inconvenient data are just wished away.

The Frazier/Randle estimate of the bag's length? Wished away!

The coincidence between this estimate and the length of the 2 curtain rods 'found' in the Paine garage? Wished away!

The March 15 date? Wished away!

Unfortunately for Ms Davison, who was working only off CE1952, we also have this, the original handwritten-in-red-ink version from the DPD files which, unlike CE1952, does contain Agent Howlett's signature beside the words 'SPECIMEN RELEASED TO:_____'

(https://i.imgur.com/MK4q7Qf.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/x68eFlw.jpg)

If Ms Davison, or any other Oswald-Did-It zealot, wishes to magically change the 3-15-64 date to something pre-WC-Paine-garage-visit, they still have an impossible problem.

The WC visit to the Paine home begins at 7.30pm on March 23.

So changing the date to March 23 is not going to work:

9:45 a.m. is rather earlier than 7.30pm!

How about changing the date to March 24, the day after the WC visit to the Paine home?

Nope, still not a workable solution. for it would give us:

2 curtain rods that are
------------submitted to the lab at 9:45am on March 24
------------released from the lab at 7:50am on March 24!  :D

Just how many numbers on this Crime Scene Search Section form do the Lone Nutters want to change before they're happy?

Dismiss them! Enough!

It is a matter of record that 2 curtain rods were submitted on 15 March 1964 to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting against Mr Oswald's prints.

It is also a matter of record that 2 curtain rods were found during a visit by the WC to Ms Paine's garage on 23 March 1964.

March 15 continues to be earlier than March 23, and there is not a blessed thing the Nutters can do about it!  :'(
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 01:24:19 PM
And we are still awaiting an explanation from any of the Oswald-Brought-The-Rifle-To-The-Depository-That-Morning true believers for the fact that we have

-------------a Crime Scene Search Section form stating that 2 curtain rods were submitted on March 15 and (with the confirmatory signature of Agent Howlett) released on March 24
and
-------------a Crime Scene Search Section form stating that 2 curtain rods were sumbitted on March 15 and (without the confirmatory signature of Agent Howlett) released on March 26

(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)

Hugger-mugger!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 02:06:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Below are the relevant dates and testimonies of Ruth and Michael as far as I could find......

Ruth Paine in Washington From Saturday March 21 ? Continuation of testimony taken Friday 19th March

[...]

Mr Crow, the extremely guarded, non-committal way in which Ms Paine frames her answers to curtain rods questions is very telling!

Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which?
Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a conversation with Michael as to whether he did or didn't look?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Why was he looking to see if the curtain rod package was there?
Mrs. PAINE - He was particularly interested in the wrapping, was the wrapping still there, the brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - When did this take place?
Mrs. PAINE - After the assassination, perhaps a week or so later, perhaps when one of the FBI people were out; I don't really recall.
Mr. JENNER - And was the package with the curtain rods found on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - It is my recollection it was.


[...]

Senator COOPER - Let me ask a question there. After the assassination, at anytime did you go into the garage and look to see if both of these packages were there?
Mrs. PAINE - A week and a half, or a week later.
Senator COOPER - At any time?
Mrs. PAINE - Did I, personally?
Senator COOPER - Have you seen these packages since the assassination?
Mrs. PAINE - It seems to me I recall seeing a package.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall opening it up and looking in carefully. I seem to recall seeing the package [Note: The focus is on the package, not the rods!]
Senator COOPER - Both of them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Or just one?
Mrs. PAINE - Both.
Senator COOPER - Did you feel them to see if the rods were in there?
Mrs. PAINE - No. I think Michael did, but I am not certain.
Senator COOPER - But you never did, yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not my most pressing--
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not the most pressing thing I had to do at that time.
Senator COOPER - I know that. But you must have read after the assassination the story about Lee Oswald saying, he told Mr. Frazier, I think, that he was carrying some curtain rods in the car?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Do you remember reading that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I remember reading that.
Senator COOPER - Didn't that lead you-Did it lead you then to go in and see if the curtain rods were there?
Mrs. PAINE - It was all I could do at that point to answer my door, answer my telephone, and take care of my children.
[Riiiiight. The issue on which Mr Oswald's guilt or innocence may hang, and Ms Paine just never did quite find the time to check!]
Senator COOPER - I understand you had many things to do.
Mrs. PAINE - So I did not.
Senator COOPER - You never did do it?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not certain whether I specifically went in and checked on that. [! Having just said 'I did not'!] I recall a conversation with Michael about it and, to the best of my recollection, things looked as I expected to find them looking out there. This package with brown paper was still there [Again note: the focus on the package not the rods!]


What Ms Paine is studiously avoiding having to say here is:

1. The garage was searched thoroughly after Mr Oswald's arrest (duh!)

2. It was very quickly established that the curtain rods were not in place.

Mr Oswald had been manipulated into bringing curtain rods to work that day in a bag
---------the right size (when folded down at the top) for carrying 27.5/27.6-inches-when-unextended curtain rods
and also
---------the right size (when folded down from a higher point) for carrying a disassembled Carcano rifle.

Mr Oswald had been given the right bag---------by somebody.

By the time of Ms Paine's March 19 Washington testimony session, from which the above quotes are taken, the rods which Mr Oswald carried into the Depository have turned up--------in the most inconvenient place possible!

This has obviously confronted the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators with a problem, but also with a golden opportunity:

Ms Paine can quietly get her rods back, and her equivocations can facilitate the impression that the rods have been in the garage all along!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 02:43:18 PM
From the 9 December 1963 FBI Report on the assassination:

(https://i.imgur.com/z69KvRl.jpg)

If only if only if only we could add a third piece of information:

'She further stated that, shortly after Oswald's arrest, she went into the garage and verified that two curtain rods in her possession were still there.'

Instead we must make do with a most peculiar omission!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 05:24:17 PM
Friends, this original red-inked Crime Scene Search Section form presents the Lone Nutters with a multilayered nightmare!

(https://i.imgur.com/aFLn4jM.jpg)

Layer 1: The date of submission (15 March 1964) precedes the on-the-record removal of 2 curtain rods from Mrs Paine's garage on 23 March!

Layer 2: The rods were fingerprinted and the results tested against Mr Oswald's prints!

Layer 3: No mention of where these 2 rods were found!

Layer 4: The double signature of the person who submitted the rods (Mr Howlett) belongs to the very person who was to 'find' 2 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage on March 23!

Layer 5: The date and time of release---the date and time when the 2 rods that had been submitted on March 15 were given back to Mr Howlett---is 24 March, the day after the on-the-record 'finding' of Mrs Paine's curtain rods in her garage!

Layer 6: Lieutenant J. C. Day's notation: 'marked 275 & 275', which just happens to coincide with digits one might write upon measuring the length of each rod (i.e. 27.5/27.6 inches)!

But!

A whole other layer of nightmare is added by the fact that the version of this Crime Scene Search Section form that will go into the public domain as a Warren Commission Exhibit will bear
------a different date of release!
------no signature from the release recipient!

(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)

Challenge to our resident Lone Nutters!:

How can this item of evidence have been released twice?

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 08, 2019, 06:28:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)

If either of these versions of the Crime Scene Search Section form is correct, then the 2 curtain rods 'found' by Agent Howlett in Ms Paine's garage on the evening of 23 March cannot be the 2 curtain rods that were submitted on 15 March.

The date-of-release on both forms is too late!

Now!

This consequence is sheer anathema to Lone Nutters. There are no circumstances in which they will accept evidence pointing to Mr Oswald's innocence.

Which is why they must reject
-----------not just the date of submission (3-15-64)
-----------but also both dates of release (3-24-64, 3-26-64)!

In other words, they must reject both versions----but in a way that does not acknowledge hugger-mugger cover-up activity by the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators.

Those of us, on the other hand, who do not worship the conclusions of the Warren Commission are free to ask ourselves the following basic question without fear of where the answer might lead:

Why are there two versions in the first place?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 09, 2019, 02:43:35 AM
Friends, for the two curtain rods submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting on 15 March to be the same two curtain rods 'found' by Agent Howlett in the Paine garage on 23 March, they had to be taken out of the Crime Scene Search Section at some point between 15 March and 23 March. Yes?

But how was this done?

The two versions of the form give dates after 23 March:

(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)

But let us look closely at the date on the 'later', unsigned-by-Agent-Howlett form!

(https://i.imgur.com/xpu8dwu.jpg)

I have never seen a '6' quite like the one in '26' from Lieutenant Day's hand before...

(https://i.imgur.com/27a8fRY.jpg)

All it would have taken was a squiggle of the pen to post-date the release from March 21 (two days before 'finding' of 2 rods in Paine garage)-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/opSRtLg.jpg)

-------------to March 26---------------

(https://i.imgur.com/xpu8dwu.jpg)

15 March: 2 curtain rods submitted to lab

21 March: 2 curtains signed out from lab

23 March: 2 curtain rods 'found' in Paine garage

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 09, 2019, 05:59:14 PM
Friends, on 16 March 1964 Mr J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel on the Warren Commission, writes this to Mr J. Edgar Hoover:

(https://i.imgur.com/qBGR38M.jpg)

Context Explains All!:

Just the day before this letter is written, 2 curtain rods have been submitted by SS Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day at the Crime Scene Search Section to check for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

Now--------quite by coincidence, of course--------Mr Oswald's having brought curtain rods to work on 11/22 is suddenly deemed by Mr Rankin a 'story' that needs to be 'check[ed] out... fully'
============i.e. closed down in every way possible!

Within a few short days of this letter's being written, Mr Rankin's fellow Commission man Mr Jenner will be pretending to witness Agent Howlett 'find' 2 in-place-in-the-Paine-garage-since-before-the-assassination curtain rods!

Isn't it just remarkable, this sudden flurry of urgent activity in mid-March 1964 around a curtain rods 'story' that appears hitherto to have gone fully un-checked-out by the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators since 11/22/63?

What can have happened to concentrate minds?

 :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2019, 06:49:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends, on 16 March 1964 Mr J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel on the Warren Commission, writes this to Mr J. Edgar Hoover:

(https://i.imgur.com/qBGR38M.jpg)

Context Explains All!:

Just the day before this letter is written, 2 curtain rods have been submitted by SS Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day at the Crime Scene Search Section to check for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

Now--------quite by coincidence, of course--------Mr Oswald's having brought curtain rods to work on 11/22 is suddenly deemed by Mr Rankin a 'story' that needs to be 'check[ed] out... fully'
============i.e. closed down in every way possible!

Within a few short days of this letter's being written, Mr Rankin's fellow Commission man Mr Jenner will be pretending to witness Agent Howlett 'find' 2 in-place-in-the-Paine-garage-since-before-the-assassination curtain rods!

Isn't it just remarkable, this sudden flurry of urgent activity in mid-March 1964 around a curtain rods 'story' that appears hitherto to have gone fully un-checked-out by the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators since 11/22/63?

What can have happened to concentrate minds?

 :D

What do you hope to expose, Alan.....   You may be right in proposing that they were manipulating the curtain rod story.... but what does it prove? 

Lee denied that he had told Frazier that the 27 inch long sack, that was constructed of FLIMSY paper contained curtain rods.....Let's take a look at the scribbled notes....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 09, 2019, 09:31:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What do you hope to expose, Alan.....   You may be right in proposing that they were manipulating the curtain rod story.... but what does it prove?

That they were manipulating the curtain rod story because it needed manipulating:

-----------------two 27 1/2 inch curtain rods matching Ms Paine's description of her missing curtain rods had turned up in the Depository because
-----------------Mr Oswald had brought them to work on 11/22 in a bag estimated by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle to have been approx. 27 inches long when folded over at the top.

Quote
Lee denied that he had told Frazier that the 27 inch long sack, that was constructed of FLIMSY paper contained curtain rods.....Let's take a look at the scribbled notes....

I have already dealt with both points you raise, Mr Cakebread!

And I am unaware of any scribbled notes written by Mr Oswald while in custody.

Here however is part of Agent Hosty's scribbled notes from his 11/23 interview with Ms Paine:

(https://i.imgur.com/81Yf4Zl.jpg)

Mr Oswald was in her garage the night before the assassination
------------to pick up curtain rods!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2019, 11:17:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That they were manipulating the curtain rod story because it needed manipulating:

-----------------two 27 1/2 inch curtain rods matching Ms Paine's description of her missing curtain rods had turned up in the Depository because
-----------------Mr Oswald had brought them to work on 11/22 in a bag estimated by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle to have been approx. 27 inches long when folded over at the top.

I have already dealt with both points you raise, Mr Cakebread!

And I am unaware of any scribbled notes written by Mr Oswald while in custody.

Here however is part of Agent Hosty's scribbled notes from his 11/23 interview with Ms Paine:

(https://i.imgur.com/81Yf4Zl.jpg)

Mr Oswald was in her garage the night before the assassination
------------to pick up curtain rods!

 Thumb1:

Vert weak, Alan.... I fully support your efforts and I hope that you can present something solid....But so far ........
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 09, 2019, 11:35:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Vert weak, Alan.... I fully support your efforts and I hope that you can present something solid....But so far ........

 :D

I'm happy to let more competent researchers than you be the judge of that, Mr Cakebread!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2019, 11:48:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

I'm happy to let more competent researchers than you be the judge of that, Mr Cakebread!

You've at the plate, Alan..... It's up to you to hit it outta the park....  There are no other researchers that can pinch hit for you.

PS...Why the animosity?....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 10, 2019, 12:32:28 AM
Alan, if nothing else your efforts have again exposed the official story, according known document details, is full of holes. For those of us who wish to understand what happened it provides little solace, to the sheep, as we might suspect, all we will get is some bleating.

The only reason anyone would want to fingerprint the curtain rods in the Paine garage in March 64 would be a suspicion that somehow they were returned there from the crime scene after the assassination.  Certainly there was no thoughts that Oswald could perform that deed. Did they suspect Frazier of doing that? No mention of Frazier in the report and after all why would Frazier do so, it would not help him in the slightest.

Certainly Liebeler seemed totally unaware of any curtain rods in the Paine garage until his deposition of Michael Paine on March 17th.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 12:51:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, if nothing else your efforts have again exposed the official story, according known document details, is full of holes. For those of us who wish to understand what happened it provides little solace, to the sheep, as we might suspect, all we will get is some bleating.

The only reason anyone would want to fingerprint the curtain rods in the Paine garage in March 64 would be a suspicion that somehow they were returned there from the crime scene after the assassination.  Certainly there was no thoughts that Oswald could perform that deed. Did they suspect Frazier of doing that? No mention of Frazier in the report and after all why would Frazier do so, it would not help him in the slightest.

Certainly Liebeler seemed totally unaware of any curtain rods in the Paine garage until his deposition of Michael Paine on March 17th.

Mr Crow, the late date of all this curtain rod investigation------------4 months after the assassination-------------is a giveaway here!

We can be quite sure, given Mr Frazier's claims as to what Mr Oswald had told him the morning of 11/22, that curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage would have been amongst the very first things checked.

There is no way in the seven kingdoms this utterly basic piece of detective work would have been left unattended to for four months:
------------apart from the intrinsic absurdity of the idea, it would have incurred the risk of the rods' being thrown out or somesuch in the meantime,
------------which would have been most uncongenial to the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators!

So it is beyond strange that one can find no record of a simple check for curtain rods being made in Ms Paine's garage before March 1964, merely Ms Paine's 23/11/63 assurance that she had not given Mr Oswald any curtain rods:

(https://i.imgur.com/c4BrYYQ.jpg)

(= a nice piece of equivocation:
----------------gets around the problem of admitting in plain English that she had spare curtain rods in the first place,
----------------which confirmation that there had in fact been curtain rods in the garage would have tallied uncomfortably well with Mr Frazier's claim as to Mr Oswald's claim
----------------which would in turn have led to a very awkward no-brainer question popping into the head of any outsider reading the report:

'Yes, but are the goddam rods still there, Mrs Paine?')

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 10, 2019, 01:33:46 AM
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that day, saying it was his lunch (in an over-sized bag). AFAIK.

For those claiming Oswald brought in said curtain rods, where do you suppose he left them while he went about his work day? It seems to me it would be a good idea to ask his boss to keep them in his office that day, safely out-of-the-hands of any would-be kleptomaniacs.

If I was an Oswald handler (@ CTers: hypothetically) I'd advise him to put a second bag with a few curtain rods within an appropriately-sized-gun bag. Then present the curtain bag to his boss for safe-keeping. The only problem remaining would be the disposal of the gun bag.

It seems he didn't have time to plan that precisely, given such short notice.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 01:40:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that day, saying it was his lunch (in an over-sized bag). AFAIK.

Yes: AFAYK!  Thumb1:

Quote
For those claiming Oswald brought in said curtain rods, where do you suppose he left them while he went about his work day?

An excellent place would be the small storage room on the first floor, just off the vestibule. Which is exactly where Mr Ochus Campbell was telling the press Mr Oswald was seen just after the assassination!  Thumb1:

Quote
If I was an Oswald handler (@ CTers: hypothetically) I'd advise him to put a second bag with a few curtain rods within an appropriately-sized-gun bag.

Well, that wouldn't set off any alarm bells in Mr Oswald's head now, would it?  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 10, 2019, 01:53:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that day, saying it was his lunch (in an over-sized bag). AFAIK.

For those claiming Oswald brought in said curtain rods, where do you suppose he left them while he went about his work day? It seems to me it would be a good idea to ask his boss to keep them in his office that day, safely out-of-the-hands of any would-be kleptomaniacs.

If I was an Oswald handler (@ CTers: hypothetically) I'd advise him to put a second bag with a few curtain rods within an appropriately-sized-gun bag. Then present the curtain bag to his boss for safe-keeping. The only problem remaining would be the disposal of the gun bag.

It seems he didn't have time to plan that precisely, given such short notice.

Bill, Oswald was a liar.....as we all are. What we seek is what really happened. To do that one must sort lies from truth and allow for innocent mistakes and errors along the way.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 03:12:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes: AFAYK!  Thumb1:

An excellent place would be the small storage room on the first floor, just off the vestibule. Which is exactly where Mr Ochus Campbell was telling the press Mr Oswald was seen just after the assassination!  Thumb1:

Well, that wouldn't set off any alarm bells in Mr Oswald's head now, would it?  ::)

Let's assume that Lee was carrying a 27 inch paper sack that was constructed of "flimsy", "crinkly",  brown paper....  He would have wanted Frazier to see that long sack because the script of the play in which he was the star performer.....called for a witness who could tell the press that he'd seen Lee Oswald carry a long sack that morning.   However He didn't want the entire work crew at the TSBD to see that sack.... Because it wasn't long enough to have contained a rifle.....  and that's what the script called for ..  It was supposed to appear as if Lee had carried a rifle ( the carcano)  to work that morning.   But nobody at the TSBD saw him carry a long sack into the building....

Therefore he must have quickly hid the sack on the loading dock out of sight of Frazier and before he entered the building.   He told Frazier that the 27 inch sack held curtain rods, and indeed it could have held curtain rods.  ( Any debate about his room needing curtains is irrelevant ) Thus Lee had succeeded in carrying a parcel that could be mentally expanded  as big enough to contain a rifle. 

An aside and a Personal Comment:....  I have always been befuddled WHY the "investigators" immediately jumped at the absurd idea that Le carried the rifle to work in a paper sack. From the first time I heard that theory, I thought it was ridiculous...   I now believe the reason the police jumped on the theory is because ..That's what the script called for. 

It's possible that those curtain rods stayed where Lee had hidden them and  weren't retrieved until long after the official tale had taken root...   

Now thanks to Alan Ford....The story is starting to gel....  The investigators found the curtain rods and wanted to see if Lee had handled them....So they were sent to the DPD.
Lt Day ( one of the biggest liars in the DPD) said that he found finger prints but they were not Lee Oswald's, And in this case he might have been telling the truth.    But the fact that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD completely destroys the tale that the conspirators invented...  Lee told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods....And sure enough the "investigars found the curtain rods that verified Lee's statement and utterly refuted the silly idea that the sack contained a carcano.

Thank You, Alan Ford....   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 03:59:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, Oswald was a liar.....as we all are. What we seek is what really happened. To do that one must sort lies from truth and allow for innocent mistakes and errors along the way.

Oswald was a liar.....as we all are. What we seek is what really happened.

I like this tune, Mr Crow....  I'll hum along....    Lee was trained by our government to lie and deceive...And he performed well in the USSR....They even sent him a draft card in February of 1960 that was signed "Good Marine" ...in German.....  Gut Schieffer.   

But Lee was not lying when he said that he had not shot anybody, "I'm just a Patsy".    However....He was still a pathetic neophyte and a rank amateur compared to some of the amoral spooks who were setting him up.   When he wasn't killed in the TSBD he became a loose cannon....  And needed to be dumped overboard ASAP....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 10, 2019, 04:06:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like this tune, Mr Crow....  I'll hum along....    Lee was trained by our government to lie and deceive...And he performed well in the USSR....They even sent him a draft card in February of 1960 that was signed "Good Marine" ...in German.....  Gut Schieffer.   

Walt fabrication #53
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 04:19:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt fabrication #53

Thanks for your support....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 10, 2019, 04:45:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes: AFAYK!  Thumb1:

An excellent place would be the small storage room on the first floor, just off the vestibule. Which is exactly where Mr Ochus Campbell was telling the press Mr Oswald was seen just after the assassination!  Thumb1:

Well, that wouldn't set off any alarm bells in Mr Oswald's head now, would it?  ::)

... getting the curtain rods?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 10, 2019, 04:52:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, if nothing else your efforts have again exposed the official story, according known document details, is full of holes. For those of us who wish to understand what happened it provides little solace, to the sheep, as we might suspect, all we will get is some bleating.

The only reason anyone would want to fingerprint the curtain rods in the Paine garage in March 64 would be a suspicion that somehow they were returned there from the crime scene after the assassination.  Certainly there was no thoughts that Oswald could perform that deed. Did they suspect Frazier of doing that? No mention of Frazier in the report and after all why would Frazier do so, it would not help him in the slightest.

Certainly Liebeler seemed totally unaware of any curtain rods in the Paine garage until his deposition of Michael Paine on March 17th.

Given that it was the authorities that brought these curtain rods to light to check them for prints it is somewhat difficult to understand how the "official" story has been exposed.  If these same authorities had been involved in covering up curtain rods from the TSBD as part of the frame up of Oswald, why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?  LOL.  Good grief.  They are simply doing due diligence.  Oswald claimed to Frazier (although he denied it to authorities) about going to the Paine home for curtain rods.  There are some curtain rods at the Paine home.  The authorities check them to see if there is any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 10, 2019, 05:24:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes: AFAYK!  Thumb1:

An excellent place would be the small storage room on the first floor, just off the vestibule. Which is exactly where Mr Ochus Campbell was telling the press Mr Oswald was seen just after the assassination!  Thumb1:

Well, that wouldn't set off any alarm bells in Mr Oswald's head now, would it?  ::)

Hiding the curtain rods would run counter to the plan I suggested... which was curtain-rod 'show & tell' (Shelley) in nature. Hiding the curtain rods in a storage room still runs the risk of them being stolen.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 07:11:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given that it was the authorities that brought these curtain rods to light to check them for prints it is somewhat difficult to understand how the "official" story has been exposed.  If these same authorities had been involved in covering up curtain rods from the TSBD as part of the frame up of Oswald, why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?  LOL.  Good grief.  They are simply doing due diligence.  Oswald claimed to Frazier (although he denied it to authorities) about going to the Paine home for curtain rods.  There are some curtain rods at the Paine home.  The authorities check them to see if there is any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious.

Good to see you back, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:

Now!

I want you to take a long hard look at this. It is a calendar of March 1964, on which I have circled two dates:

(https://i.imgur.com/2dmMwqc.jpg)

In your considered opinion, Mr Smith, which of these two dates came first?:

15 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett for fingerprinting to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section)
or
23 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were found by Agent Howlett in Ms Ruth Paine's garage).

Thank you for your input!  Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 07:17:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hiding the curtain rods would run counter to the plan I suggested... which was curtain-rod 'show & tell' (Shelley) in nature.

Could you translate into English please? Thank you!  Thumb1:

Quote
Hiding the curtain rods in a storage room still runs the risk of them being stolen.

Yes---it would be like leaving a 10-carat pink diamond from Tiffany's lying around  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 08:32:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given that it was the authorities that brought these curtain rods to light to check them for prints it is somewhat difficult to understand how the "official" story has been exposed.  If these same authorities had been involved in covering up curtain rods from the TSBD as part of the frame up of Oswald, why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?  LOL.  Good grief.  They are simply doing due diligence.  Oswald claimed to Frazier (although he denied it to authorities) about going to the Paine home for curtain rods.  There are some curtain rods at the Paine home.  The authorities check them to see if there is any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious.

why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?

Good question Mr "Smith"....   The answer is:....  Because if they were in her garage then they cetainly couldn't have bveen in a 27 inch "FLIMSY" and "Crinkly" paper sack that lee carried that morning....  IOW...  The curtain rods in Paine's garage were a way to refute the dead patsy's story....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 10, 2019, 10:16:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given that it was the authorities that brought these curtain rods to light to check them for prints it is somewhat difficult to understand how the "official" story has been exposed.  If these same authorities had been involved in covering up curtain rods from the TSBD as part of the frame up of Oswald, why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?  LOL.  Good grief.  They are simply doing due diligence.  Oswald claimed to Frazier (although he denied it to authorities) about going to the Paine home for curtain rods.  There are some curtain rods at the Paine home.  The authorities check them to see if there is any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious.

Note how Colin drags out the 'sheep' thing again. Ah, the old Appeal to Rebellion thing again
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 10, 2019, 10:44:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could you translate into English please? Thank you!  Thumb1:

Yes---it would be like leaving a 10-carat pink diamond from Tiffany's lying around  ::)

My intent is to show how Oswald could have backed up his curtain rod story re Buell.
Bring the curtain rods and rifle together
Place the curtain rods in another bag once he got to work
Ask his boss if he can leave them in his office for the day

Good so far?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 11:04:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My intent is to show how Oswald could have backed up his curtain rod story re Buell.
Bring the curtain rods and rifle together
Place the curtain rods in another bag once he got to work
Ask his boss if he can leave them in his office for the day

Good so far?

 :D

Nope, bad so far!

Your convoluted scenario puts a bag into Mr Oswald's hands that does not match Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's description.

My straightforward scenario, by contrast, puts a bag into Mr Oswald's hands that fits all the evidence. 

The only reason you won't countenance my scenario is that it is incompatible with the official story of what Mr Oswald brought to work that day.

Ho hum!  ::)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 10, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Note how Colin drags out the 'sheep' thing again. Ah, the old Appeal to Rebellion thing again

Sheep can be rebellious too......just make sure you have something worthwhile in the chamber.

(https://i.ibb.co/MNrDCNx/1-E035-CFD-8349-407-A-9-A26-9-A42-E795-BDCC.jpg)

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 12:11:42 PM
Friends, Ms Paine's March 19 WC testimony would have gone something like this had curtain rods truly been found still in place after the assassination:

Mr JENNER. Now Mrs Paine, I want to direct your attention to these two items. Can you tell me what they are?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, they are white curtain rods.
Mr JENNER. How many of them do you see here?
Mrs PAINE. Two.
Mr JENNER. I would ask you to think carefully before you answer this next question. Have you ever seen these curtain rods before?
Mrs PAINE. Why yes. They are mine.
Mr JENNER. Are you certain of that?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I am quite certain. They still have the old length measurements I marked in pencil. 27.5 and 27.6 inches.
Mr JENNER. Were these two curtain rods in your garage before the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Were they in your garage after the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Did you check?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. When the officers were searching my garage they asked me whether we had any curtain rods and I showed them these.
Mr JENNER. Had you already checked yourself?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. And the curtain rods had remained in place?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. They were right where I'd left them.
Mr JENNER. And did they remain in place after the officers had finished searching your garage?
Mrs PAINE. No. The officers took a photograph of them in place and then asked my permission to take them away.
Mr JENNER. Did you give them permission?
Mrs PAINE. Why, yes. Losing a pair of curtain rods would have been the least of my worries at that time, you know.
Mr JENNER. I appreciate how difficult this whole thing must have been for you, Mrs Paine. Now, you are aware that Oswald's friend Buell Wesley Frazier recalled being told by Oswald on the morning of the assassination that he had curtain rods in the bag he was carrying?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I had heard that.
Mr JENNER. Is that why you went to check on the curtain rods yourself before the garage was searched?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. I wanted to check if Oswald really had taken them, like he was supposed to have said.
Mr JENNER. And you established that he hadn't?
Mrs PAINE. He hadn't.
Mr JENNER. Have you seen these curtain rods since the officers took them away that day?
Mrs PAINE. I have not.
Mr JENNER. We're going to mark these as Exhibit 435.


On top of this, we would have clear documentary evidence from November '63 onwards of these two curtain rods' having been found in Mrs Paine's garage right after Mr Oswald's arrest!

And much hay would most assuredly have been made in the press of the fact that the curtain rods which Mr Oswald had told his co-worker he had in the bag had in fact been found in Mrs Paine's garage!

But alas!

Instead we have evidence that tells a very different story:
-----------no curtain rods found in the garage after the assassination
-----------2 curtain rods suddenly showing up on the record in mid-March '64
-----------these rods being tested for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------2 curtain rods being 'found' in Mrs Paine's garage by the very agent who had submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting 8 days earlier!

And the Warren Gullibles want you to believe there's nothing untoward in any of this!

:D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 11, 2019, 12:28:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good to see you back, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:

Now!

I want you to take a long hard look at this. It is a calendar of March 1964, on which I have circled two dates:

(https://i.imgur.com/2dmMwqc.jpg)

In your considered opinion, Mr Smith, which of these two dates came first?:

15 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett for fingerprinting to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section)
or
23 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were found by Agent Howlett in Ms Ruth Paine's garage).

Thank you for your input!  Thumb1:

False premise again.  Particularly since you can't explain a narrative in which the authorities involved in a frame up of Oswald are the very same folks who bring these curtain rods to light.  Why would they do that?  LOL.  Very simple.  Sometime before March 15, it comes to the attention of the authorities during the course of the WC investigation that there were some curtain rods in the Paine garage.  You don't believe there could be any informal communications between the Paines and the WC investigators?  They do due diligence and check them and return.  Ruth Paine confirms these rods have been in her garage during the relevant time (i.e. from the date of the assassination until the authorities check).  Even that is predicated on the dates being correct (i.e. March 15 instead of 25).  The notion that somehow because March 15 comes before March 25 somehow proves these curtain rods were not found in the Paine garage is fall on the ground laughing material.  Paine herself confirms where these rods were kept.  Let me guess.  She is lying.  Another person to add to the "small" conspiracy of thousands. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 11, 2019, 12:36:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?

Good question Mr "Smith"....   The answer is:....  Because if they were in her garage then they cetainly couldn't have bveen in a 27 inch "FLIMSY" and "Crinkly" paper sack that lee carried that morning....  IOW...  The curtain rods in Paine's garage were a way to refute the dead patsy's story....

You are not following. The authorities don't have to account for any curtain rods because in the "official (i.e. real story) there weren't any taken to the TSBD.  It is Oswald's cover story for the rifle.   If they found curtain rods at the TSBD in a frame up, they just chuck them out and say they never found any.  They don't need to arrange an "alternative" scenario months after Oswald's death to account for them that somehow involves getting Ruth Paine to vouch for them.  LOL.  If there had been a conspiracy (and there wasn't), it is unfortunate they were brighter than others here.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 11, 2019, 12:59:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, Oswald was a liar.....as we all are. What we seek is what really happened. To do that one must sort lies from truth and allow for innocent mistakes and errors along the way.

People, in particular those accused of murders, generally don't intentionally lie AGAINST their own self interest.  If Oswald had carried a bag that contained exculpatory, non-incriminating items like curtain rods, he not only would not have lied by denying it but screamed from the rooftops where to find it.  The notion that the "official" story is somehow more convoluted than the implications of a wild, alternative scenario in which Oswald lies against his own interest to further raise suspicion against himself, evidence is planted from multiple different sources, other evidence is covered up but then brought to light by the same authorities who suppressed it to begin with for no apparent reason just doesn't add up as a coherent narrative.  And claims like Oswald was just a liar to explain away his behavior is a very peculiar argument to advance the cause of his innocence.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 01:13:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
False premise again.  Particularly since you can't explain a narrative in which the authorities involved in a frame up of Oswald are the very same folks who bring these curtain rods to light.  Why would they do that?  LOL.  Very simple.  Sometime before March 15, it comes to the attention of the authorities during the course of the WC investigation that there were some curtain rods in the Paine garage.  You don't believe there could be any informal communications between the Paines and the WC investigators?  They do due diligence and check them and return.  Ruth Paine confirms these rods have been in her garage during the relevant time (i.e. from the date of the assassination until the authorities check).  Even that is predicated on the dates being correct (i.e. March 15 instead of 25).  The notion that somehow because March 15 comes before March 25 somehow proves these curtain rods were not found in the Paine garage is fall on the ground laughing material.  Paine herself confirms where these rods were kept.  Let me guess.  She is lying.  Another person to add to the "small" conspiracy of thousands.

Excellent response, Mr Smith, you and I are making tremendous progress together in sleuthing this matter out!  Thumb1:

You accept---and I commend you on your clarity in doing this, belated as it is  :D ---that 15 March fell before 23 March.

Therefore Agent Howlett, according to you, was only pretending to be shown the way to finding the 2 curtain rods in the garage on March 23. He was already perfectly familiar with these 2 rods, because only 8 days earlier he himself had submitted them for fingerprinting to the Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting!  :D

In other words, he was performing a charade in the Paine garage. Yes?

Now!

Together, in a spirit of cooperative research-mindedness, you and I must somehow explain the existence of not one but two versions of the official Crime Scene Search Section form, with two different release dates:

(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)

How, in your considered view, are we to account for the existence of not one but two versions of the official Crime Scene Search Section form?

And which of these two official versions do you believe is giving the correct 'specimen released' date and time?

Thank you! Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 02:23:36 PM
Friends,

What if my solution to the later, 26 March version of the form-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)
-------------is wrong?  :o

What if the 26 was not originally 21, but was indeed originally written 26?

It would point us to a different scenario-------and, some would say, a more elegant one.

Startling proposal!:

What if the original, red-inked version of the form is telling the plain truth?

It is, after all, a document to be taken very seriously indeed, for it is the one that bears the receipt signature of Agent Howlett-------the person who had submitted the rods in the first place.

What if 2 curtain rods were indeed submitted for fingerprinting on March 15--------and were not released until 9 days later, March 24?

What would the consequence be?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 11, 2019, 02:59:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends, Ms Paine's March 19 WC testimony would have gone something like this had curtain rods truly been found still in place after the assassination:

Mr JENNER. Now Mrs Paine, I want to direct your attention to these two items. Can you tell me what they are?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, they are white curtain rods.
Mr JENNER. How many of them do you see here?
Mrs PAINE. Two.
Mr JENNER. I would ask you to think carefully before you answer this next question. Have you ever seen these curtain rods before?
Mrs PAINE. Why yes. They are mine.
Mr JENNER. Are you certain of that?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I am quite certain. They still have the old length measurements I marked in pencil. 27.5 and 27.6 inches.
Mr JENNER. Were these two curtain rods in your garage before the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Were they in your garage after the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Did you check?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. When the officers were searching my garage they asked me whether we had any curtain rods and I showed them these.
Mr JENNER. Had you already checked yourself?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. And the curtain rods had remained in place?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. They were right where I'd left them.
Mr JENNER. And did they remain in place after the officers had finished searching your garage?
Mrs PAINE. No. The officers took a photograph of them in place and then asked my permission to take them away.
Mr JENNER. Did you give them permission?
Mrs PAINE. Why, yes. Losing a pair of curtain rods would have been the least of my worries at that time, you know.
Mr JENNER. I appreciate how difficult this whole thing must have been for you, Mrs Paine. Now, you are aware that Oswald's friend Buell Wesley Frazier recalled being told by Oswald on the morning of the assassination that he had curtain rods in the bag he was carrying?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I had heard that.
Mr JENNER. Is that why you went to check on the curtain rods yourself before the garage was searched?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. I wanted to check if Oswald really had taken them, like he was supposed to have said.
Mr JENNER. And you established that he hadn't?
Mrs PAINE. He hadn't.
Mr JENNER. Have you seen these curtain rods since the officers took them away that day?
Mrs PAINE. I have not.
Mr JENNER. We're going to mark these as Exhibit 435.


On top of this, we would have clear documentary evidence from November '63 onwards of these two curtain rods' having been found in Mrs Paine's garage right after Mr Oswald's arrest!

And much hay would most assuredly have been made in the press of the fact that the curtain rods which Mr Oswald had told his co-worker he had in the bag had in fact been found in Mrs Paine's garage!

But alas!

Instead we have evidence that tells a very different story:
-----------no curtain rods found in the garage after the assassination
-----------2 curtain rods suddenly showing up on the record in mid-March '64
-----------these rods being tested for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------2 curtain rods being 'found' in Mrs Paine's garage by the very agent who had submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting 8 days earlier!

And the Warren Gullibles want you to believe there's nothing untoward in any of this!

:D

Alan, I believe that I've seen a photo that was taken inside of the pain garage that shows curtain rods in the photo.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 08:00:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What if 2 curtain rods were indeed submitted for fingerprinting on March 15--------and were not released until 9 days later, March 24?

What would the consequence be?


It has been staring us in the face, friends  :'(

A SOLUTION!

1. There were 4 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage originally. (Cf. Mr Paine's testimony!)
2. Mr Oswald helped himself to 2 on 11/22.
3. The Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators knew perfectly well upon their first inspection of the garage that 2 rods were missing, but played it down.
4. Later, the 2 missing curtain rods turned up--------in the Depository.
5. These were submitted for fingerprinting on the morning of March 15, and not released until the morning of March 24.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 remaining rods were removed from Mrs Paine's garage on the evening of March 23.
7. A second, false version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was created for the record, the release date amended to March 26 to 'give time' to Lieutenant Day to fingerprint 'them'.
8. But Day screwed up---he didn't think to change the March 15 date at the top.

==========> The 2 rods removed by Agent Howlett from the Paine garage on 23 March were never fingerprinted (a pointless exercise, in any case!)
==========> The 2 rods found in the Depository were never seen again after Agent Howlett received them back from Lieutenant Day (which he did first thing---7:50 a.m.!---the morning after his on-the-record removal of the other 2 rods from the garage)
==========> By contriving to name the 2 rods removed from Mrs Paine's garage 'Exhibits 275 & 276', the WC created the impression that these were the same rods as those 'marked 275 & 276' in the DPD records.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 11, 2019, 09:24:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It has been staring us in the face, friends  :'(

A SOLUTION!

1. There were 4 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage originally. (Cf. Mr Paine's testimony!)
2. Mr Oswald helped himself to 2 on 11/22.
3. The Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators knew perfectly well upon their first inspection of the garage that 2 rods were missing, but played it down.
4. Later, the 2 missing curtain rods turned up--------in the Depository.
5. These were submitted for fingerprinting on the morning of March 15, and not released until the morning of March 24.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 remaining rods were removed from Mrs Paine's garage on the evening of March 23.
7. A second, false version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was created for the record, the release date amended to March 26 to 'give time' to Lieutenant Day to fingerprint 'them'.
8. But Day screwed up---he didn't think to change the March 15 date at the top.

==========> The 2 rods removed by Agent Howlett from the Paine garage on 23 March were never fingerprinted (a pointless exercise, in any case!)
==========> The 2 rods found in the Depository were never seen again after Agent Howlett received them back from Lieutenant Day (which he did first thing---7:50 a.m.!---the morning after his on-the-record removal of the other 2 rods from the garage)
==========> By contriving to name the 2 rods removed from Mrs Paine's garage 'Exhibits 275 & 276', the WC created the impression that these were the same rods as those 'marked 275 & 276' in the DPD records.

 Thumb1:

How long does it take to examine a curtain rod and check any prints that were found?......Apparently they were only interested in matching the prints ot Lee Oswald's finger print card....

This would have taken  a half hour at most......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 09:38:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long does it take to examine a curtain rod and check any prints that were found?......Apparently they were only interested in matching the prints ot Lee Oswald's finger print card....

This would have taken  a half hour at most......

Howlett had Day hold on to the 2 curtain rods found in the Depository until the 2 remaining rods in the garage had been safely secured in an orderly on-the-record way: late evening 23 March.

Then Agent Howlett picked up the Depository rods, knowing he could disappear them because they had been replaced in the official record by 2 different '275 & 276' rods: early morning 24 March.

The closeness of these two dates & times is absolutely no accident or coincidence: they show us what happened  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 12:02:31 AM
Now!

Let us be quite clear about something here:

This original, official, doubly signed (Day, Howlett) Crime Scene Search Section form-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/NPAxhAn.jpg)

------------- rules out the notion that the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett on 15 March 1964 can have been the same 2 curtain rods found by Agent Howlett in Mrs Paine's garage on 23 March 1964.

---------------The submission date is a disaster for the official story
---------------The released date is an even bigger disaster for the official story


On the evening 2 curtain rods were being inspected on the record in Mrs Paine's garage by Agent Howlett and the WC, these 2 curtain rods were still in Lieutenant Day's lab!

This is not a matter of opinion, interpretation or conjecture: it is simply what the historical record shows.

Checkmate.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 12, 2019, 08:24:17 AM
Alan what is your interpretation of the (4 pcs) annotation? I can only assume it means 4 pieces. One rod was white and one cream. Does it mean that each rod could be separated into 2 pieces each?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 10:02:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan what is your interpretation of the (4 pcs) annotation? I can only assume it means 4 pieces. One rod was white and one cream. Does it mean that each rod could be separated into 2 pieces each?

Exactly, Mr Crow-----------2 rods composed of 2 pieces each!  Thumb1:

(Note: Lieutenant Day's note says nothing about a 'cream' rod and a 'white' rod: only 'white enamel' for both.)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 10:35:41 AM
Friends, those still wishing to press the case that Mr Oswald brought a rifle rather than curtain rods into the Depository on the morning of the assassination now have three dates they must explain away:

Date One! The March 15 submission date on both versions of the form. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?
Date Two! The March 24 released date on the original, co-signed version. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?
Date Three! The March 26 released date on the non-co-signed version. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?

 :D

Further! These data-denying Oswald-At-Any-Cost zealots must explain in a credible way the very existence of two different versions of the official form:

(https://i.imgur.com/zaG6OSU.jpg)

How can an item of evidence be submitted for testing just once yet released from the lab twice

:D

The Lone Nutters can throw anything and everything they want at this, but none of it will stick.

The official historical record destroys their case because it proves:

a) There were 4 curtain rods in play as of the evening of 23 March 1964
-----------2 in Mrs Paine's garage
-----------2 in the Crime Scene Search Section

b) A bogus second version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was passed off as the genuine article.

'O but this time, Lord, you gave me a mountain/ A mountain that I may never climb...' 

:D



Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 12, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It has been staring us in the face, friends  :'(

A SOLUTION!

1. There were 4 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage originally. (Cf. Mr Paine's testimony!)
2. Mr Oswald helped himself to 2 on 11/22.
3. The Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators knew perfectly well upon their first inspection of the garage that 2 rods were missing, but played it down.
4. Later, the 2 missing curtain rods turned up--------in the Depository.
5. These were submitted for fingerprinting on the morning of March 15, and not released until the morning of March 24.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 remaining rods were removed from Mrs Paine's garage on the evening of March 23.
7. A second, false version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was created for the record, the release date amended to March 26 to 'give time' to Lieutenant Day to fingerprint 'them'.
8. But Day screwed up---he didn't think to change the March 15 date at the top.

==========> The 2 rods removed by Agent Howlett from the Paine garage on 23 March were never fingerprinted (a pointless exercise, in any case!)
==========> The 2 rods found in the Depository were never seen again after Agent Howlett received them back from Lieutenant Day (which he did first thing---7:50 a.m.!---the morning after his on-the-record removal of the other 2 rods from the garage)
==========> By contriving to name the 2 rods removed from Mrs Paine's garage 'Exhibits 275 & 276', the WC created the impression that these were the same rods as those 'marked 275 & 276' in the DPD records.

 Thumb1:

Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 01:15:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game.

 :D

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   Thumb1:

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 12, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   Thumb1:

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 12, 2019, 02:20:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?

This is a valid question....   I've asked myself that same question.    And the answer is; Perhaps it's a case of someone being out of the loop ( Someone didn't get the memo)

The person who found the curtain rods ( hidden under the loading dock?) at the TSBD was unaware that they didn't want to verify that the convicted and executed, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald, had in fact carried curtain rods and not a carcano in a paper sack that morning.   He who found the curtain rods needed to be duped into believing that the curtain rods that he had discovered had no connection with Lee Oswald or the murder of JFK.   

P.S.   Howlett was a leading member of the cover up team in Dallas......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 05:00:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

 :D

Mr Smith, you're like a worm wriggling on a hook and squealing 'What?! Ludicrous to think someone could have put a hook here!! This is NOT happening!!!'

I'm afraid it is happening, and your efforts to divert from the hard evidence are fooling nobody. You simply cannot explain what that hard evidence tells us:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Not a theory, not a speculation, not a claim: a documented fact.

2 + 2 = 4, Mr Smith, however you spin it!  Thumb1:

Now! Can anyone else from the Nutter stable do better than Mr Smith?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 12, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

"Richard" has no interest in altered documents, changed dates, or evidence that is submitted prior to it being "discovered".

All he is interested in is asking why his strawman vast conspiracy would do such a thing.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 12, 2019, 07:19:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Mr Smith, you're like a worm wriggling on a hook and squealing 'What?! Ludicrous to think someone could have put a hook here!! This is NOT happening!!!'

I'm afraid it is happening, and your efforts to divert from the hard evidence are fooling nobody. You simply cannot explain what that hard evidence tells us:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Not a theory, not a speculation, not a claim: a documented fact.

2 + 2 = 4, Mr Smith, however you spin it!  Thumb1:

Now! Can anyone else from the Nutter stable do better than Mr Smith?

Talk about diverting!  I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  You have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer the most obvious question that your fantasy raises.  Even Walt gave it a crack.  Again, why would your conspirators who had successfully suppressed the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD, suddenly bring them to light months after the fact to check them for Oswald's prints and then put them back in Paine's garage?  There is no need for your conspirators to account for any curtain rods because there was no record of their existence.  That would have been the whole point of suppressing them in the first place.  LOL.  Thus, you have an obvious and internal inconsistency in your fantasy scenario which you can't apparently reconcile.  Those who are going to great pains to suppress the curtain rods are suddenly and inexplicably the same ones voluntarily bringing them to light.  And conveniently filling out a form to document it.  Wow. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 12, 2019, 07:42:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?

This is a valid question....   I've asked myself that same question.    And the answer is; Perhaps it's a case of someone being out of the loop ( Someone didn't get the memo)

The person who found the curtain rods ( hidden under the loading dock?) at the TSBD was unaware that they didn't want to verify that the convicted and executed, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald, had in fact carried curtain rods and not a carcano in a paper sack that morning.   He who found the curtain rods needed to be duped into believing that the curtain rods that he had discovered had no connection with Lee Oswald or the murder of JFK.   

P.S.   Howlett was a leading member of the cover up team in Dallas......

I give you credit for at least trying but this is not very convincing.  Of all people not to get the memo on covering up the discovery of curtain rods, you single out Howlett who you then claim is the "leading member of the cover up team in Dallas."  He is the one who submits the request in question.  As a result, you appear to be suggesting that head of the cover up didn't understand there was a cover up.  That is difficult to reconcile.

How exactly would the person who found the curtain rods at the TSBD be duped by a plan which places the curtain rods back in the Paine garage?  If a person found them at the TSBD (i.e. saw them with their own eyes at the TSBD), the WC indicating that they were found in the Paine's garage would highlight a falsehood not dupe anyone who otherwise knew they were found at the TSBD.  To do what you have suggested would have entailed acknowledging the discovery of curtain rods at the TSBD but then saying that because there were none of Oswald's prints on them that these could not be linked to him or perhaps suggest that Oswald could have stuck a couple of curtain rods in the same bag as his rifle.  The WC does not do this but places the curtain rods in the Paine garage from the time of the assassination.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Talk about diverting!  I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  You have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer the most obvious question that your fantasy raises.  Even Walt gave it a crack.  Again, why would your conspirators who had successfully suppressed the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD, suddenly bring them to light months after the fact to check them for Oswald's prints and then put them back in Paine's garage?  There is no need for your conspirators to account for any curtain rods because there was no record of their existence.  That would have been the whole point of suppressing them in the first place.  LOL.  Thus, you have an obvious and internal inconsistency in your fantasy scenario which you can't apparently reconcile.  Those who are going to great pains to suppress the curtain rods are suddenly and inexplicably the same ones voluntarily bringing them to light.  And conveniently filling out a form to document it.  Wow.

 :D

Oh Mr Smith, you are a riot!

You talk as though the failure of your heroes in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation to bury with 100% success the emergence of 2 other curtain rods were somehow my problem.

It's not-------it's yours!  Thumb1:

You cannot have it both ways, my friend
A---------'Ha ha, you have no hard evidence!'
B---------'Ha ha, I refuse to acknowledge your hard evidence because if I were a conspirator I would have made sure it never saw the light of day!'

It is an officially documented fact that 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett on 15 March.

It is an officially documented fact that these 2 curtain rods were released back to Agent Howlett on 24 March.

It is therefore an officially documented fact that the 2 curtain rods taken from Mrs Paine's garage on 23 March cannot have been the 2 curtain rods submitted by him to Lieutenant Day 8 days earlier.

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Everytime you refuse to talk about these officially documented facts, you merely broadcast loud and clear to the rest of us that they have defeated you!

Keep wriggling-----------it's fun to watch!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 08:20:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Richard" has no interest in altered documents, changed dates, or evidence that is submitted prior to it being "discovered".

All he is interested in is asking why his strawman vast conspiracy would do such a thing.

Indeed, it's pathetic!  ::)

And of course------------if a conspiracy claim turned out to be so flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence, he'd be rushing to give us a link to the pertinent fact-check article on Prof McAdams' site!

What say you a more capable Warren Defender than Mr Smith comes out of the woodwork to offer at least some counter-theory on these two Crime Scene Search Section forms?

Let's wait and see!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 12, 2019, 09:00:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I give you credit for at least trying but this is not very convincing.  Of all people not to get the memo on covering up the discovery of curtain rods, you single out Howlett who you then claim is the "leading member of the cover up team in Dallas."  He is the one who submits the request in question.  As a result, you appear to be suggesting that head of the cover up didn't understand there was a cover up.  That is difficult to reconcile.

How exactly would the person who found the curtain rods at the TSBD be duped by a plan which places the curtain rods back in the Paine garage?  If a person found them at the TSBD (i.e. saw them with their own eyes at the TSBD), the WC indicating that they were found in the Paine's garage would highlight a falsehood not dupe anyone who otherwise knew they were found at the TSBD.  To do what you have suggested would have entailed acknowledging the discovery of curtain rods at the TSBD but then saying that because there were none of Oswald's prints on them that these could not be linked to him or perhaps suggest that Oswald could have stuck a couple of curtain rods in the same bag as his rifle.  The WC does not do this but places the curtain rods in the Paine garage from the time of the assassination.


Of all people not to get the memo on covering up the discovery of curtain rods, you single out Howlett who you then claim is the "leading member of the cover up team in Dallas."    by Leading member of the cover up team...I'm referring to the team from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee .....

I don't know how you've managed to twist what I said....   Someone who was not privy to the fact that the "investigators" were not in fact investigating the case and seeking evidence.    The "investigators" like John Howlett were only interested in solidifying  the case against the arch villain who had already been convicted, executed, and dumped in his grave..   Someone found the curtain rods where Lee had hastily hidden them before entering the TSBD at the back door in the shipping room near the Domino Room that morning.  That person reported that he'd found the curtain rods that Lee Oswald was purported to have carried that morning...

"Ohhhhhh sh-t!!"  ....says Howlett....  "I gotta defuse this" .... I'll send the curtain rods over to Day at the DPD and have him find prints that are not Lee Oswald's...Then I can leak the info back to the person who found them that the curtain rods have nothing to do with the case.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2019, 08:03:48 AM
Friends, while we're waiting for the Lone Nutters to reconcile the hard evidence
------------2 curtain rods (other than the 2 found in Mrs Paine's garage) being tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints-----------
with their soft-headed theory
------------Mr Oswald carrying a rifle rather than curtain rods into work on 11/22--------------
let us see if we can't put together a picture of how Mr Oswald was framed!  Thumb1:

As I see it, there was Plan A and Plan B.

Plan A

----Manipulate Mr Oswald into bringing a long bag containing curtain rods into work on the morning of JFK's visit
----Make sure bag and rods are separated by the time law enforcement arrive post-assassination to search the Depository

The problem with Plan A is that it requires Mr Oswald to make an untypical overnight at the Paine home in Irving on the Thursday evening.

What if, despite the best efforts of whoever is manipulating him, he declines to go to Irving?

Never fear!

Plan B has already been put into effect for that contingency.

Plan B

What happened to this poor fellow:

(https://i.imgur.com/uBMjdZS.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 13, 2019, 01:54:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Oh Mr Smith, you are a riot!

You talk as though the failure of your heroes in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation to bury with 100% success the emergence of 2 other curtain rods were somehow my problem.

It's not-------it's yours!  Thumb1:

You cannot have it both ways, my friend
A---------'Ha ha, you have no hard evidence!'
B---------'Ha ha, I refuse to acknowledge your hard evidence because if I were a conspirator I would have made sure it never saw the light of day!'

It is an officially documented fact that 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett on 15 March.

It is an officially documented fact that these 2 curtain rods were released back to Agent Howlett on 24 March.

It is therefore an officially documented fact that the 2 curtain rods taken from Mrs Paine's garage on 23 March cannot have been the 2 curtain rods submitted by him to Lieutenant Day 8 days earlier.

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Everytime you refuse to talk about these officially documented facts, you merely broadcast loud and clear to the rest of us that they have defeated you!

Keep wriggling-----------it's fun to watch!  :D

Got it.  You have no answer to a basic question after I've given you multiple opportunities to explain the implications of your silly theory. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 13, 2019, 02:08:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Of all people not to get the memo on covering up the discovery of curtain rods, you single out Howlett who you then claim is the "leading member of the cover up team in Dallas."    by Leading member of the cover up team...I'm referring to the team from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee .....

I don't know how you've managed to twist what I said....   Someone who was not privy to the fact that the "investigators" were not in fact investigating the case and seeking evidence.    The "investigators" like John Howlett were only interested in solidifying  the case against the arch villain who had already been convicted, executed, and dumped in his grave..   Someone found the curtain rods where Lee had hastily hidden them before entering the TSBD at the back door in the shipping room near the Domino Room that morning.  That person reported that he'd found the curtain rods that Lee Oswald was purported to have carried that morning...

"Ohhhhhh sh-t!!"  ....says Howlett....  "I gotta defuse this" .... I'll send the curtain rods over to Day at the DPD and have him find prints that are not Lee Oswald's...Then I can leak the info back to the person who found them that the curtain rods have nothing to do with the case.

I haven't twisted anything you said.  Merely explained why it doesn't make sense.  You claimed Howlett was a leading member of the cover up but he is the same guy here who would have screwed up by filing a form to have the curtain rods checked (the same curtain in this fantasy that he and the WC are trying to cover up)! The direct implication is that a "leading member" of the cover up didn't understand before March 15, 1964 that a cover up was going on.  It's impossible to reconcile those conflicting explanations.

And your bizarre and baseless theory that someone who found the curtain rods at the TSBD would be duped by the WC into believing they were found at the Paine garage makes no absolutely no sense at all.  If an individual had FOUND them at the TSBD, how exactly would they be duped into believing that they had been in the Paine's garage for the entire time?  In fact, they would have first-hand knowledge that wasn't true because they had found them at the TSBD!  Good grief.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 13, 2019, 02:55:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I haven't twisted anything you said.  Merely explained why it doesn't make sense.  You claimed Howlett was a leading member of the cover up but he is the same guy here who would have screwed up by filing a form to have the curtain rods checked (the same curtain in this fantasy that he and the WC are trying to cover up)! The direct implication is that a "leading member" of the cover up didn't understand before March 15, 1964 that a cover up was going on.  It's impossible to reconcile those conflicting explanations.

And your bizarre and baseless theory that someone who found the curtain rods at the TSBD would be duped by the WC into believing they were found at the Paine garage makes no absolutely no sense at all.  If an individual had FOUND them at the TSBD, how exactly would they be duped into believing that they had been in the Paine's garage for the entire time?  In fact, they would have first-hand knowledge that wasn't true because they had found them at the TSBD!  Good grief.

your bizarre and baseless theory that someone who found the curtain rods at the TSBD would be duped by the WC into believing they were found at the Paine garage makes no absolutely no sense at all.

I agree Mr "Smith".... And I never said that the "somebody" who found the curtain rods at the TSBD was duped into believing they were found at the house of Paine.

Mr "somebody" was simply informed that the curtain rods that he'd discovered had no connection with the case....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2019, 03:47:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Got it.  You have no answer to a basic question after I've given you multiple opportunities to explain the implications of your silly theory.

 :D

Mr Smith, this is not complicated!

Do you accept that, as of 7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964, there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage and 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab?

Yes or no?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2019, 03:51:45 PM
Let me put the same question to Mr Nickerson, who has gone very quiet on this issue!

Mr Nickerson, do you accept that, as of 7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964, there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage and 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab?

Yes or no?

 Thumb1:


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2019, 12:20:30 AM
Friends, it is with heavy heart that I must report that I have tracked down items marked #275 and #276, which were taken from the Paine home by DPD, and they prove conclusively that the 2 curtain rods tested for prints by Lieutenant Day and marked by him '275 & 276' were indeed found in the Paine home--------and not, as I had believed, in the Depository building:

(https://i.imgur.com/uHB8OnG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/tAoqOQq.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 14, 2019, 01:02:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friends, it is with heavy heart that I must report that I have tracked down items marked #275 and #276, which were taken from the Paine home by DPD, and they prove conclusively that the 2 curtain rods tested for prints by Lieutenant Day and marked by him '275 & 276' were indeed found in the Paine home--------and not, as I had believed, in the Depository building:

(https://i.imgur.com/uHB8OnG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/tAoqOQq.jpg)

 :D

275  is a Russian language form in writing
276 is photos portraying scenes in Russia

Don't play games....   that confuse the reader....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2019, 09:02:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Plan B

What happened to this poor fellow:

(https://i.imgur.com/uBMjdZS.jpg)

From Mr J. Edgar Hoover to Mr J. Gordon Shanklin, 2 Jan 1964:

(https://i.imgur.com/yRkl6Gp.jpg)

Why were the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators so keen to see Mr Yates' story "completely discredit[ed]"?

Because! His sighting of 'Lee Harvey Oswald' bringing a long bag containing 'curtain rods' to Dealey Plaza
--------------made no sense from the point of view of the Lone Nut explanation for the assassination (= one LHO-with-'curtain-rods' story too many!)
--------------made dangerous sense from the point of view of an Oswald-Framed explanation (= a giveaway as to the framers' insurance plan!)

One way or the other, those framing Mr Oswald had made damn sure that he would be seen carrying a long package containing what he said were curtain rods.

Now!

The penultimate sentence in the document quoted above reads:

"Yates described by fellow employee as a 'big talker who always talks about a lot of foolishness.'"

What this does not say, and what had turned Mr Yates into a big problem, was the fact that this fellow employee-------Mr Dempsey Jones--------had offered disastrously strong corroboration for Mr Yates' story!

Mr Jones' recollection of what Mr Yates had told him before the assassination made it extremely hard to write off Mr Yates' story as a post-assassination fabrication...  ???

Let us be clear on one thing, friends:

Had Mr Oswald declined to go out to Irving on Thursday 21 November to pick up the 2 curtain rods which would four months later be submitted for fingerprinting in the Crime Scene Search Section, then Mr Ralph Leon Yates would have been one of the Warren Commission's star witnesses!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2019, 04:02:11 PM
Friends, on this day 55 years ago, Agent John Joe Howlett submitted a pair of curtain rods to the Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting: 15 March 1964.

Eight days later, the same Agent John Joe Howlett turned up with WC representatives at the home of Ms Ruth Paine; one of the items he inspected and took away from this evening visit was a pair of curtain rods which Ms Paine gave to understand had been in the garage since well before the assassination: 23 March 1964.

The following morning, at 7.50 a.m., the same Agent John Joe Howlett returned to the Crime Scene Search Section and formally received back the pair of curtain rods he had submitted for fingerprinting nine days earlier: 24 March 1964.

Two days later, at 7.50 a.m., Lieutenant J. C. Day signed a copy of the same Crime Scene Search Section form to the effect that he was now releasing to a person unknown (no signature) the pair of curtain rods that had been submitted for fingerprinting eleven days earlier and already released to Agent Howlett two days ago: 26 March 1964.

We are still awaiting a cogent explanation of the above facts from those who believe that the pair of curtain rods removed from Ms Paine's garage were the selfsame curtain rods that Agent Howlett submitted for fingerprinting to Lieutentant Day!

Tick tock, boys!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2019, 04:22:13 PM
Now!

Absent a cogent explanation from our Oswald-Did-It friends as to the above facts, we are left with the following conclusions:

1. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a pair of curtain rods to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts perfectly for:

a) the length of the package seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle (~27 inches)
b) Mr Oswald's alleged claim to Mr Frazier that morning that the bag contained curtain rods
c) the known fact that a pair of curtain rods found elsewhere than in the Paine garage were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
d) the complete absence of any confirmation in the official record that no curtain rods had gone missing from the Paine garage at the time of the assassination
e) the curious coincidence between the 'marked 275 & 276' notation by Lieutenant Day on the Crime Scene Search Section form and the entirely arbitrary way in which the pair of curtain rods picked up by Agent Howlett on the evening of 23 March came to have the designation 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276'.

2. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a disassembled rifle to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts for nothing except its studied pretence that points a)-e) above do not exist.

The hard evidence and the circumstantial evidence point to Mr Oswald's having taken a pair of curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage and brought them to work the morning of the assassination!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2019, 04:54:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

Absent a cogent explanation from our Oswald-Did-It friends as to the above facts, we are left with the following conclusions:

1. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a pair of curtain rods to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts perfectly for:

a) the length of the package seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle (~27 inches)
b) Mr Oswald's alleged claim to Mr Frazier that morning that the bag contained curtain rods
c) the known fact that a pair of curtain rods found elsewhere than in the Paine garage were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
d) the complete absence of any confirmation in the official record that no curtain rods had gone missing at the time of the assassination
e) the curious coincidence between the 'marked 275 & 276' notation by Lieutenant Day on the Crime Scene Search Section form and the entirely arbitrary way in which the pair of curtain rods picked up by Agent Howlett on the evening of 23 March came to have the designation 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276'.

2. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a disassembled rifle to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts for nothing except its studied pretence that points a)-e) above do not exist.

The hard evidence and the circumstantial evidence point to Mr Oswald's having taken a pair of curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage and brought them to work the morning of the assassination!

 Thumb1:

The hard evidence and the circumstantial evidence point to Mr Oswald's having taken a pair of curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage and brought them to work the morning of the assassination!

Yes, I believe that's the case....   However, there are a lot of holes in that story....

First question...   Was the Warren Commission's Dallas team working in Dallas on in mid March of 1964?   If they were they no doubt would have been looking around the TSBD.   Which raises the key question:... Did one of the TSBD employees tell one of the Dallas Team that he had found some curtain rods hidden near the back door of the TSBD?       

I believe that you've previously stated that Howlett was interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage on March 24.....   WHY?   WHY Would have Howlett been interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage?   You've reported that Howlett took some curtain rods from the Paine garage and then had Lt day check them for finger prints....   I can only surmise that Howlett thought that Lee Oswald might have handled those curtain rods when he removed the rods that he carried on the morning of 11/22/63  ( assuming that the curtain rods were in a common bundle) ....   

However the only way I can make any sense out of this is IF IF  Lt Day had found Lee's prints on the curtain rods that Howlett removed from the Paine garage then Howlett would have known that Lee probably had carried curtain rods that morning.....But what would he have done with that information??

There's no doubt in my mind that Howlett was a skunk....  He's the deceiver who pretended as a stand-in for Lee Oswald in the ridiculous "re-enactment" of Lee Oswald's theorized movements after the shooting.  Howlett pretended that a light piece of 1" X 3" X 40" wood was a carcano rifle and then demonstrated how Lee Oswald hid the rifle by jamming it between some boxes that were  FIVE FEET closer to the stairs than the actual location where the rifle was found by Deputy Boone. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 15, 2019, 06:12:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now!

Absent a cogent explanation from our Oswald-Did-It friends as to the above facts, we are left with the following conclusions:

1. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a pair of curtain rods to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts perfectly for:

a) the length of the package seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle (~27 inches)
b) Mr Oswald's alleged claim to Mr Frazier that morning that the bag contained curtain rods
c) the known fact that a pair of curtain rods found elsewhere than in the Paine garage were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
d) the complete absence of any confirmation in the official record that no curtain rods had gone missing at the time of the assassination
e) the curious coincidence between the 'marked 275 & 276' notation by Lieutenant Day on the Crime Scene Search Section form and the entirely arbitrary way in which the pair of curtain rods picked up by Agent Howlett on the evening of 23 March came to have the designation 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276'.

2. The claim that Mr Oswald brought a disassembled rifle to work on the morning of 11/22/63 accounts for nothing except its studied pretence that points a)-e) above do not exist.

The hard evidence and the circumstantial evidence point to Mr Oswald's having taken a pair of curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage and brought them to work the morning of the assassination!

 Thumb1:

You left out the part where Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  In your fantasy scenario, Oswald lies to get himself into further difficulties instead of out of them.  If his bag had contained curtain rods, the obvious thing to do is direct the police to it.  Instead he denies carrying a long package because it contains something he doesn't want to be associated with.  And then it gets even better.  Having somehow successfully suppressed the recovery of curtain rods found at the TSBD, Howlett suddenly decides to bring them to light five months later to check for some inexplicable reason whether Oswald's prints are on them when, in a frame up, they have succeeded in covering their existence.  And he conveniently fills out a form to document the very evidence they want to cover up!   LOL.   What a plan.  Everyone is acting contrary to their own interest in this scenario but it must be true because March 15 comes before March 23.  Whew.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2019, 07:19:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  [...] Did one of the TSBD employees tell one of the Dallas Team that he had found some curtain rods hidden near the back door of the TSBD?

Whoever found the curtain rods somewhere in the Depository would, one assumes, have notified someone in law enforcement. This may have put Agent Howlett in a very difficult situation: he had to control the narrative by being seen to 'resolve' the matter through official channels (i.e. sending the rods for fingerprinting). All it would have taken was one honest, not-in-the-loop person in law enforcement to constrain Agent Howlett's options------------they could come forward at any point in the future and ask, 'Hey, what happened to those curtain rods I passed on to you?' Furthermore, the person in the Depository who found the rods could make unwelcome noises about it. A way had to be found to create a paper record showing that the matter had been followed up on and 'resolved'.

Solution: Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner contrived a pretty dance around 'finding' 2 rods in the Paine garage---and tagging them '275 & 276' in order to lend the impression they were the same 2 rods as those discovered in the Depository.

Quote
I believe that you've previously stated that Howlett was interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage on March 24.....

No! March 23!

Quote
WHY?   WHY Would have Howlett been interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage?

He became interested in them as a result of the 2 curtain rods discovered in the Depository. The on-the-record theatre in the Paine garage on 23 March was an elaborate way of making the 2 curtain rods from the Depository disappear: the 2 rods notated 'marked 275 & 276' by Lieutenant Day 'became' 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276'! 

Quote
You've reported that Howlett took some curtain rods from the Paine garage and then had Lt day check them for finger prints....

No! That is exactly what he didn't do!

15 March: Agent Howlett submits 2 rods for fingerprinting.
23 March: Agent Howlett takes 2 rods from Paine garage.
24 March: Agent Howlett receives back the original 2 rods from fingerprinting lab.

We are dealing with two pairs of curtain rods here, not one!

Quote
I can only surmise that Howlett thought that Lee Oswald might have handled those curtain rods when he removed the rods that he carried on the morning of 11/22/63  ( assuming that the curtain rods were in a common bundle) ....

If the rods had been found in the Paine garage, the issue of Mr Oswald's prints would have been irrelevant. What made that issue burningly relevant was their discovery in a place other than the Paine garage----i.e. somewhere Mr Oswald had been after leaving the Paine home that morning.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2019, 07:31:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You left out the part where Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  In your fantasy scenario, Oswald lies to get himself into further difficulties instead of out of them.  If his bag had contained curtain rods, the obvious thing to do is direct the police to it.  Instead he denies carrying a long package because it contains something he doesn't want to be associated with.  And then it gets even better.  Having somehow successfully suppressed the recovery of curtain rods found at the TSBD, Howlett suddenly decides to bring them to light five months later to check for some inexplicable reason whether Oswald's prints are on them when, in a frame up, they have succeeded in covering their existence.  And he conveniently fills out a form to document the very evidence they want to cover up!   LOL.   What a plan.  Everyone is acting contrary to their own interest in this scenario but it must be true because March 15 comes before March 23.  Whew.

Yes-------March 15 comes before March 23, and March 23 comes before March 24, and March 24 comes before March 26.

You still haven't offered an explanation for the dates on these forms, Mr Smith!

I, on the other hand have:
------------2 curtain rods were found by A. N. Other in the Depository
------------A. N. Other alerted someone in law enforcement
------------this someone passed the matter up to someone in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation
------------the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators had to 'resolve' the issue
------------the story of how they 'resolved' the issue is told in the clearest way by the dates which you can't explain!

As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
----------he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.

Now! Over to you yet again, Mr Smith, for your theory explaining the following:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 17, 2019, 07:29:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s400/PaperBagPackage.jpg)
That is the address of where?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 17, 2019, 07:48:06 PM
Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 04:18:07 PM
Quote
Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag, doesn't mean that he wasn't 
Re-read that drivel...or was Jack blind? No... He stated that he saw Oswald enter for work and didn't see him carrying anything.
 
Quote from: John Iacoletti link=topic=1753. :-Xmsg46776#msg46776 date=1551890105
Their mother, Essie Mae Williams.  She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.
 https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_150_300.png
Another case of proving a negative. Mrs Williams did not see a bag...does not mean there was no bag. So far 2 people say they saw the bag. A dubious description of supposed bag from both of them. No one of the entire rest of all the employees in that building said that they saw any bag carried by Oswald that day. How many negatives is that?
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2019, 10:28:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is the address of where?

That address doesn?t exist.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 18, 2019, 01:48:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes-------March 15 comes before March 23, and March 23 comes before March 24, and March 24 comes before March 26.

You still haven't offered an explanation for the dates on these forms, Mr Smith!

I, on the other hand have:
------------2 curtain rods were found by A. N. Other in the Depository
------------A. N. Other alerted someone in law enforcement
------------this someone passed the matter up to someone in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation
------------the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators had to 'resolve' the issue
------------the story of how they 'resolved' the issue is told in the clearest way by the dates which you can't explain!

As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
----------he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.

Now! Over to you yet again, Mr Smith, for your theory explaining the following:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

 Thumb1:

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 18, 2019, 07:32:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

Breaking News!!!

Mr Richard Smith confirmed earlier today that he still cannot come up with an explanation for the clear, unambiguous hard evidence that
-----------as of 7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964------------
there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Sources close to Mr Smith indicate however that he remains "quietly but defiantly" committed to the view that
---------------15 March 1964 came after 23 March 1964
---------------23 March 1964 came after 24 March 1964.

"Smith is one of our top guys," commented one LN source understood to be particularly close to Mr Smith. "If he says 2 + 2 = 2, then heck, that's good enough for me."
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 12:28:18 AM
Question for Mr Tim Nickerson!

On March 7, your explanation for the Crime Scene Search Section form went as follows:

"Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself."

Do you still stand over this explanation? If so, do you think Agent Howlett was also aware that he had not yet received the two curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day and so could not possibly be about to find them in the Paine garage?

Thanking you in advance for your resumed input, good sir!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 05:09:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.

Of course it?s alleged. The interrogations weren?t recorded.

Quote
  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

All of these verbal gymnastics to try to deflect and avoid discussing any possible legitimate reason that evidence could be submitted before it was found.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 10:45:02 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 10:53:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course it?s alleged. The interrogations weren?t recorded.

All of these verbal gymnastics to try to deflect and avoid discussing any possible legitimate reason that evidence could be submitted before it was found.

 Thumb1:

-------------and that a piece of evidence could be released from the crime lab twice (March 24 & 26)!
-------------and that 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 11:07:13 AM
Reclaiming History, LNer style:

(https://i.imgur.com/9MYATKk.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 24, 2019, 07:07:32 PM
So!

Those who insist that Mr Oswald brought a rifle into work on the morning of the assassination find themselves in the humiliating position of being unable to explain the sequence of dates on the original DPD Crime Scene Search Section form. The noise from Mr Smith----------and the silence from Messrs Nickerson & May-----------have only made their failure all the more wretchedly evident to the rest of us!

We are still left with:
---------------2 curtain rods found otherwhere than in the Paine garage, submitted 3/15/64 for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, and not released from the lab until 3/24/64
---------------2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage 3/23/64.

2 + 2 = 4  Walk:

Now! Can someone suggest a place other than the Texas School Book Depository where the first pair of curtain rods might have been found?

NB: This alternative location must be one that will have warranted testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 25, 2019, 01:44:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So!

Those who insist that Mr Oswald brought a rifle into work on the morning of the assassination find themselves in the humiliating position of being unable to explain the sequence of dates on the original DPD Crime Scene Search Section form. The noise from Mr Smith----------and the silence from Messrs Nickerson & May-----------have only made their failure all the more wretchedly evident to the rest of us!

We are still left with:
---------------2 curtain rods found otherwhere than in the Paine garage, submitted 3/15/64 for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, and not released from the lab until 3/24/64
---------------2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage 3/23/64.

2 + 2 = 4  Walk:

Now! Can someone suggest a place other than the Texas School Book Depository where the first pair of curtain rods might have been found?

NB: This alternative location must be one that will have warranted testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

 Thumb1:

Ruth Paine's garage as her testimony confirms and the exhibit numbers on your form indicate.  Oswald himself denied having any curtain rods that day.  You are claiming that your hero lied against his own self interest if all he had that day was a couple of curtain rods.  And he would have done so knowing that Frazier would confirm he had a long bag that Oswald had told him contained curtain rods.  So Oswald not only lies against his own self interest but knows there is another witness who will confirm he is lying instead of doing the obvious thing in his own self interest and directing the police to this bag that would lend itself to his innocence if it contained anything other than the rifle. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 01:53:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ruth Paine's garage as her testimony confirms and the exhibit numbers on your form indicate.  Oswald himself denied having any curtain rods that day.  You are claiming that your hero lied against his own self interest if all he had that day was a couple of curtain rods.  And he would have done so knowing that Frazier would confirm he had a long bag that Oswald had told him contained curtain rods.  So Oswald not only lies against his own self interest but knows there is another witness who will confirm he is lying instead of doing the obvious thing in his own self interest and directing the police to this bag that would lend itself to his innocence if it contained anything other than the rifle.

 :D

The 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March were not signed back out until 24 March.

On the evening of 23 March, Agent Howlett found 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage.

Now! Attend closely to what I am about to say, Mr Smith, for if you allow its truth to truly sink in you will stop making a fool of yourself:

23 March comes before 24 March.

Therefore the 2 curtain rods which Agent Howlett removed from the Paine garage cannot be the same 2 curtain rods he had submitted 8 days earlier for fingerprinting.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 02:37:59 PM
Friends, for years the LNers have been crying, 'If Oswald brought curtain rods to work that morning, then where are the curtain rods?'

They now claim that the 2 curtain rods submitted by Agent Howlett for fingerprinting on 15 March came from the Paine garage.

They're right!  Thumb1:

These 2 curtain rods did indeed originally come from the Paine garage. But they left there on the morning of the assassination, when Mr Oswald carried them in a long, folded-down bag over to the Randle home. Mr Oswald brought these 2 curtain rods to the Texas School Book Depository that morning.

As Mr Michael Paine let slip in his WC testimony, there were in fact 4 curtain rods in the Paine garage
------------Mr Oswald took 2
------------2 remained behind.

The 2 curtain rods taken by Mr Oswald showed up and were sent for fingerprinting. They had shown up at a location that warranted such a test. Not the Paine garage. Not Mexico City. Not Graceland.

Subsequent to these 2 curtain rods' being submitted to Lieutenant Day at the crime lab, the 2 remaining curtain rods were removed on-the-record from the Paine garage. They were not sent for fingerprinting--------any more than any apples found in the Paine kitchen were. A positive test for Mr Oswald's prints would have had zero probative value. It would, in short, have been perfectly meaningless!

The LNers find themselves routed on this issue because the proven existence of 4 curtain rods (2 in the crime lab at 7.30pm 3/23/64; 2 in the Paine garage at 7.30pm 3/23/64) deprives them of their rabid 'No curtain rods showed up ha ha ha!' cry. 

Not surprisingly, they're very bad losers. Having your gullibility smashed on the altar of hard evidence is never pleasant!

 Walk:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 25, 2019, 09:55:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
 he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.
At least admit that this is pure conjecture.
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 10:16:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At least admit that this is pure conjecture.
 

I did use the word 'alleged', Mr Freeman!

If Mr Oswald denied having told Mr Frazier he brought curtain rods to work in a long bag, then it is not difficult to understand why he might have done so.

Of course, it is very possible that Mr Oswald confirmed to Captain Fritz about the curtain rods only to have his confirmation suppressed (just as his claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade was suppressed).

We must proceed from the hard evidence (what the Crime Scene Search Section form tells us) to the soft evidence (what Mr Oswald may have said in custody). Hard evidence is king!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 26, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I did use the word 'alleged', Mr Freeman!

If Mr Oswald denied having told Mr Frazier he brought curtain rods to work in a long bag, then it is not difficult to understand why he might have done so.

Of course, it is very possible that Mr Oswald confirmed to Captain Fritz about the curtain rods only to have his confirmation suppressed (just as his claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade was suppressed).

We must proceed from the hard evidence (what the Crime Scene Search Section form tells us) to the soft evidence (what Mr Oswald may have said in custody). Hard evidence is king!

Again, there is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial that he had any curtain rods.  He made the denial in front of more than just Fritz.  It is dishonest to suggest there is any doubt whatsoever about this.  And your explanation for that lie if he had any curtain rods is laughable.  If Oswald had curtain rods instead of a rifle in the bag, then it would assist his cause.  He would have every incentive to acknowledge them including the fact that he knew Frazier could confirm his story.   In your ludicrious ad hoc narrative Oswald lies against his own self-interest, the authorities successfully cover up the discovery of his curtain rods, but then inexplicably five months later they voluntarily bring them to light to check for Oswald's prints!!!  LOL.  And they fill out a form to document.  Do you not understand how absurd that narrative is?  And if there were any doubt, Ruth Paine confirms the curtain rods at issue were in her garage the entire time and they have the same exhibit number noted on your form as the one assigned by the WC.  Get a grip.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, there is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial that he had any curtain rods.  He made the denial in front of more than just Fritz.  It is dishonest to suggest there is any doubt whatsoever about this.  And your explanation for that lie if he had any curtain rods is laughable.  If Oswald had curtain rods instead of a rifle in the bag, then it would assist his cause.  He would have every incentive to acknowledge them including the fact that he knew Frazier could confirm his story.   In your ludicrious ad hoc narrative Oswald lies against his own self-interest, the authorities successfully cover up the discovery of his curtain rods, but then inexplicably five months later they voluntarily bring them to light to check for Oswald's prints!!!  LOL.  And they fill out a form to document.  Do you not understand how absurd that narrative is?  And if there were any doubt, Ruth Paine confirms the curtain rods at issue were in her garage the entire time and they have the same exhibit number noted on your form as the one assigned by the WC.  Get a grip.

Do let us know when you have a rational explanation for this, Mr Smith!

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Tick-tock! :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 26, 2019, 06:18:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do let us know when you have a rational explanation for this, Mr Smith!

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Tick-tock! :D

I've said my last word on the topic as you simply post the form over and over and over again like some type of automated response system.  Here is a suggestion.  Send your form to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other news outlet setting forth your case for a conspiracy/frame up.  Have them review it as a neutral party.  Get back to us with the results.  If you have confidence that you have evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, then you should make the effort.  If, however, you are just a krank who doesn't really believe his own nonsense, then just continue to post it here.  Good luck!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2019, 06:25:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So!

Those who insist that Mr Oswald brought a rifle into work on the morning of the assassination find themselves in the humiliating position of being unable to explain the sequence of dates on the original DPD Crime Scene Search Section form. The noise from Mr Smith----------and the silence from Messrs Nickerson & May-----------have only made their failure all the more wretchedly evident to the rest of us!

We are still left with:
---------------2 curtain rods found otherwhere than in the Paine garage, submitted 3/15/64 for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, and not released from the lab until 3/24/64
---------------2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage 3/23/64.

2 + 2 = 4  Walk:

Now! Can someone suggest a place other than the Texas School Book Depository where the first pair of curtain rods might have been found?

NB: This alternative location must be one that will have warranted testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

 Thumb1:

 Can someone suggest a place other than the Texas School Book Depository where the first pair of curtain rods might have been found?

The curtain rods were simply part of the ruse .....  Lee went to Irving on Thursday and returned carrying a 27 inch paper sack that could have carried a weapon ( if it weren't closely scrutinized)....   That's exactly what he wanted Frazier to believe....So he could tell the police that he's observed Lee carrying a long paper sack that morning.   I believe that Lee was carrying curtain rods AND his lunch in that flimsy light weight paper sack .....

So logically he would have carried the flimsy paper sack cupped in his hand that damp and rainy morning..... ( to prevent his lunch from bursting out the bottom of that flimsy paper sack) When he arrived at the loading dock he removed the sandwich and orange from the sack and stuck them in his jacket pockets....and then stashed the paper sack and curtain rods in some cubbyhole before entering the building....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 09:20:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've said my last word on the topic as you simply post the form over and over and over again like some type of automated response system.  Here is a suggestion.  Send your form to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other news outlet setting forth your case for a conspiracy/frame up.  Have them review it as a neutral party.  Get back to us with the results.  If you have confidence that you have evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, then you should make the effort.  If, however, you are just a krank who doesn't really believe his own nonsense, then just continue to post it here.  Good luck!

Mr Smith, still unable to explain away the hard evidence that 4 curtain rods were in play as of 7.30pm 23 March 1964, stamps his foot and----------throws in the towel!  :D

As we bid fond farewell to poor frustrated Mr Smith, we wonder to ourselves which doughty spirit from the ranks of the Warren Gullibles shall next emerge to have a shot at the problem...

Mr Nickerson?

Mr Galbraith?

Mr Navarro?

How about you, Mr von Pein? Go on, be a hero---you and your pals' claim that 'No curtain rods were ever found' needs urgent rescuing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 09:50:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Question for Mr Tim Nickerson!

On March 7, your explanation for the Crime Scene Search Section form went as follows:

"Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself."

Do you still stand over this explanation? If so, do you think Agent Howlett was also aware that he had not yet received the two curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day and so could not possibly be about to find them in the Paine garage?

Thanking you in advance for your resumed input, good sir!  Thumb1:

Bumped for Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 11:36:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe that Lee was carrying curtain rods AND his lunch in that flimsy light weight paper sack .....

I do too----cheese sandwich & apple!

If he really did tell Mr Frazier that morning that he didn't have any lunch in the long bag, then it might have simply been because he wanted to be left alone at lunch break to consume his lunch in peace & quiet.

The Wiegman film shows Prayer Man raising his right hand to his mouth while holding something in his left hand:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

He's finishing the last of his lunch (apple or sandwich?), and holding the last of his coke, while watching the P. parade.

P.S. It would not have been the done thing for a female Depository clerk to stand around consuming food & drink outside like this. For a manual grunt like Mr Oswald though-------no problem!

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2019, 11:48:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
P.S. It would not have been the done thing for a female Depository clerk to stand around consuming food & drink outside like this. For a manual grunt like Mr Oswald though-------no problem!

Is this some female clerk etiquette rule that I'm unaware of?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 26, 2019, 11:53:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this some female clerk etiquette rule that I'm unaware of?

Apparently so!

The ladies ate before going outside. Grunts like Mr Lovelady and Mr Oswald were less ladylike!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 27, 2019, 01:18:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do too----cheese sandwich & apple!

If he really did tell Mr Frazier that morning that he didn't have any lunch in the long bag, then it might have simply been because he wanted to be left alone at lunch break to consume his lunch in peace & quiet.

The Wiegman film shows Prayer Man raising his right hand to his mouth while holding something in his left hand:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

He's finishing the last of his lunch (apple or sandwich?), and holding the last of his coke, while watching the P. parade.

P.S. It would not have been the done thing for a female Depository clerk to stand around consuming food & drink outside like this. For a manual grunt like Mr Oswald though-------no problem!

Whew.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 27, 2019, 09:43:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Whew.

Welcome back, Mr Smith. We trust you've had a chance to lick those wounds caused by the very public curtain-rod lashing you received!  :D

Now! There is nothing at all unreasonable in the proposition that Mr Oswald was in the front entranceway watching the Presidential parade
-------------it's what he himself claimed (as we now know from Agent Hosty's interrogation notes)!
-------------his claim is supported by the presence of the Prayer Man figure in the Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell films!
-------------the claim that he brought a rifle into the Depository that morning has collapsed in the face of the evidence that he brought 2 curtain rods which were later found and printed!
-------------all attempts to put him at the 6th fl window firing shots at JFK have been and remain a miserable failure!

If you disagree with the proposition that Prayer Man is Mr Oswald, perhaps you could tell us who you think Prayer Man is? We could all do with another laugh from you!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 27, 2019, 01:23:27 PM
Alan, have you checked the inner workings of the investigation around mid-March 64? This was an interesting time. From memory Ball and Belin were involved with various timings and reconstructions with witnesses just after the initial date on the CSS form. Howlett was involved in many of them. Was he in Dallas when the rods were first handed to Day. Going to check my copy of Inquest.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2019, 04:08:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do too----cheese sandwich & apple!

If he really did tell Mr Frazier that morning that he didn't have any lunch in the long bag, then it might have simply been because he wanted to be left alone at lunch break to consume his lunch in peace & quiet.

The Wiegman film shows Prayer Man raising his right hand to his mouth while holding something in his left hand:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

He's finishing the last of his lunch (apple or sandwich?), and holding the last of his coke, while watching the P. parade.

P.S. It would not have been the done thing for a female Depository clerk to stand around consuming food & drink outside like this. For a manual grunt like Mr Oswald though-------no problem!

Oh Damn it!...Now we need to debate and argue about whether the fruit in the sack was an apple or and orange???    Some reports say Lee said he had a sandwich and an orange, while the senile old Fritz lists the fruit as an apple....What the hell difference does it make?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 04:14:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some reports say Lee said he had a sandwich and an orange,

What reports?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2019, 04:24:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What reports?

You figger it out.....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 04:29:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You figger it out.....

What I "figger" is Walt fabrication.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2019, 05:27:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I "figger" is Walt fabrication.

Well obviously,  you can't figger .... Who the hell cares if Lee had an apple or an orange in that flimsy paper sack?   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 06:08:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well obviously,  you can't figger .... Who the hell cares if Lee had an apple or an orange in that flimsy paper sack?   

I don't really care if he did.  I'm just wondering about these "reports" of an orange that you claim exist.  Do they exist anywhere but in your mind?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 28, 2019, 12:37:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't really care if he did.  I'm just wondering about these "reports" of an orange that you claim exist.  Do they exist anywhere but in your mind?

Yes they do...and if you had learned everything that I've learned you would know that some reports said that Lee had a sandwich and and orange...while Fritz said that Lee said that he had an apple.... 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 28, 2019, 12:58:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone suggest a place other than the Texas School Book Depository where the first pair of curtain rods might have been found?

The curtain rods were simply part of the ruse .....  Lee went to Irving on Thursday and returned carrying a 27 inch paper sack that could have carried a weapon ( if it weren't closely scrutinized)....   That's exactly what he wanted Frazier to believe....So he could tell the police that he's observed Lee carrying a long paper sack that morning.   I believe that Lee was carrying curtain rods AND his lunch in that flimsy light weight paper sack .....

So logically he would have carried the flimsy paper sack cupped in his hand that damp and rainy morning..... ( to prevent his lunch from bursting out the bottom of that flimsy paper sack) When he arrived at the loading dock he removed the sandwich and orange from the sack and stuck them in his jacket pockets....and then stashed the paper sack and curtain rods in some cubbyhole before entering the building....

"a 27 inch paper sack that could have carried a weapon ( if it weren't closely scrutinized).... "
>>> It wasn't closely scrutinized.

And you can find out if an apple, orange, or some other fruit was on Kennedy's luncheon menu at the Dallas Trade Mart because that's whose lunch ProbablyOswald ultimately ate*.

*So-to-speak

 ;)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 28, 2019, 02:22:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"a 27 inch paper sack that could have carried a weapon ( if it weren't closely scrutinized).... "
>>> It wasn't closely scrutinized.

And you can find out if an apple, orange, or some other fruit was on Kennedy's luncheon menu at the Dallas Trade Mart because that's whose lunch ProbablyOswald ultimately ate*.

*So-to-speak

 ;)

"a 27 inch paper sack that could have carried a weapon ( if it weren't closely scrutinized).... "
>>> It wasn't closely scrutinized.


Yes ...That's the point I intended ....    The sack was merely part of the ruse in which Lee was the leading player.....He wanted a witness who could testify that He'd seen Lee Oswald carry a long papaer sack that morning.....  If the HOAX had gone as Lee and his handler had planned, It would have appeared that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot JFK ( just like the HOAX at Walker's house back in April) .....   And Frazier could have acknowledged that he'd seen Lee carry a long paper sack that morning.   If JFK hadn't been murdered....Nobody would have scrutinized Frazier's story .....It would have been accepted that Lee had carried a rifle in the paper sack...  The brutal murder changed everything....and people wanted answers....

Others were involved in the HOAX scenario.....They knew that the stage play scheme called for the arch villain to have been seen carrying a parcel that could have concealed a weapon...    And that's why the police were so adamant that Lee had carried the rifle in a paper sack.

From Day one, I never could understand why the police were so insistent that Lee Harrrrrrey Ossssssswald  BOOOOO!  HISSSS! had carried the gun into the TSBD in a paper sack.   I thought it was a ludicrous  idea from day one..... But if that was what the script called for, then the paper sack tale makes sense......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2019, 04:49:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes they do...and if you had learned everything that I've learned you would know that some reports said that Lee had a sandwich and and orange...while Fritz said that Lee said that he had an apple....

Those reports must be in the same box as the photo of the bag with an umbrella handle sticking out the bottom.   :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2019, 04:51:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you can find out if an apple, orange, or some other fruit was on Kennedy's luncheon menu at the Dallas Trade Mart because that's whose lunch ProbablyOswald ultimately ate*.

*So-to-speak

What?

You've now completely lost what was remaining of your marbles.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on March 29, 2019, 07:19:15 AM
From "You are the Jury", David Belin p242.


"Did the bag contain curtain rods?

No curtain rods were discovered in the TSBD Building after the assassination. No curtain rods were taken from the Paine home".

Seems some did not even read the testimony or misrepresented it.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2019, 02:15:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From "You are the Jury", David Belin p242.


"Did the bag contain curtain rods?

No curtain rods were discovered in the TSBD Building after the assassination. No curtain rods were taken from the Paine home".

Seems some did not even read the testimony or misrepresented it.

When you are wearing the shiny "badge of authority"  you don't need to read no stinking testimony....  Your word is gospel...
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on March 29, 2019, 02:43:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From "You are the Jury", David Belin p242.


"Did the bag contain curtain rods?

No curtain rods were discovered in the TSBD Building after the assassination. No curtain rods were taken from the Paine home".

Seems some did not even read the testimony or misrepresented it.


How so?  The question appears to reference the bag Oswald carried that morning.  The WC conclusion was that it contained the rifle and by inference no curtain rods were taken by Oswald from the Paine home.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 29, 2019, 06:29:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How so?  The question appears to reference the bag Oswald carried that morning.  The WC conclusion was that it contained the rifle and by inference no curtain rods were taken by Oswald from the Paine home.

And the Crime Scene Search Section form which you repeatedly failed to explain makes that inference radically unsafe, for it tells us that 2 curtain rods other than the 2 taken from the Paine garage by Agent Howlett on 23 March 1964 were tested for Mr Oswald's prints!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 29, 2019, 06:37:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From "You are the Jury", David Belin p242.


"Did the bag contain curtain rods?

No curtain rods were discovered in the TSBD Building after the assassination. No curtain rods were taken from the Paine home".

Seems some did not even read the testimony or misrepresented it.

There is no mention in any DPD, FBI or SS report of its having been verified that no curtain rods had been taken from the Paine household. An absurd omission!

In Reclaiming History, Mr Bugliosi imagines the key questions running through Captain Fritz's mind:

"Were any curtain rods found at the Depository, or in Oswald?s room? Did his apartment need curtain rods?"

Notice the question Mr Bugliosi leaves out:

"Were any curtain rods missing from Mrs Paine's garage?"

Maybe it was there in the draft text, but didn't survive proofreading stage!  :D

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 29, 2019, 06:49:27 PM
Again from Reclaiming History:

"If Oswald, as he claimed, brought curtain rods to work, whatever happened to them? We know from witnesses (on the bus, the cabdriver, and Earlene Roberts) that he wasn?t carrying any long package after he left the Book Depository Building."

But we now know that 2 curtain rods were found and tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Mr Bugliosi's own logic identifies the place where they must have been found: Texas School Book Depository.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on March 31, 2019, 12:22:18 PM
From Mr D von Pein's blogspot exploration of the curtain rods issue:

"[...]

5.) No curtain rods were found in the TSBD in the days and weeks after
the assassination. (Warren Commission Exhibit #2640 verifies this fact
via Roy Truly's statement in a September 2, 1964, FBI report.)

6.) Oswald did not take any curtain rods out of the TSBD when he left
that building on 11/22/63. (If he did, he disposed of them somewhere
between the Depository Building on Elm Street and his roominghouse at
1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, because he definitely did not
enter the roominghouse with any sort of package. If he had, the package
would have been discovered by police.)

[...]"


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html)

Question for Mr von Pein!

How can your conclusion that no curtain rods were found be considered safe if, as the dates on the document below prove, the 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints were not the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage by Agent Howlett during Ms Paine's on-the-record testimony of 23 March?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Thanking you, Mr von Pein, for all your tireless efforts to promote Truth and Justice!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 01, 2019, 05:06:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From Mr D von Pein's blogspot exploration of the curtain rods issue:

"[...]

5.) No curtain rods were found in the TSBD in the days and weeks after
the assassination. (Warren Commission Exhibit #2640 verifies this fact
via Roy Truly's statement in a September 2, 1964, FBI report.)

6.) Oswald did not take any curtain rods out of the TSBD when he left
that building on 11/22/63. (If he did, he disposed of them somewhere
between the Depository Building on Elm Street and his roominghouse at
1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, because he definitely did not
enter the roominghouse with any sort of package. If he had, the package
would have been discovered by police.)

[...]"


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html)

Question for Mr von Pein!

How can your conclusion that no curtain rods were found be considered safe if, as the dates on the document below prove, the 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints were not the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage by Agent Howlett during Ms Paine's third on-the-record testimony taking?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Thanking you, Mr von Pein, for all your tireless efforts to promote Truth and Justice!  Thumb1:

Looks to me like you could make a case for the official form you show as being written on in 2 stages. The first in red pen, on March 15, by Day only. Interestingly the results may have been written at the time the form was being filled. No one was originally listed as entering the rods (ie blank) or it has been whited out. The second entry occurred on 24 March and has been signed by Howlett (twice) and Day in blue pen. The real questions are, where were the rods found on or before March 15? Who found them? Why were they considered important to test for Oswald's prints on March 15? What possible use testing of rods from Ruth Paine's garage for Oswald's prints have been to the investigation? If positive.....so what?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 01, 2019, 11:48:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Looks to me like you could make a case for the official form you show as being written on in 2 stages. The first in red pen, on March 15, by Day only. Interestingly the results may have been written at the time the form was being filled. No one was originally listed as entering the rods (ie blank) or it has been whited out. The second entry occurred on 24 March and has been signed by Howlett (twice) and Day in blue pen.

One problem with this is that the other version of the form----which became a Commission Exhibit----contains the first Howlett signature (submission of evidence) but not the second!

Quote
The real questions are, where were the rods found on or before March 15? Who found them? Why were they considered important to test for Oswald's prints on March 15? What possible use testing of rods from Ruth Paine's garage for Oswald's prints have been to the investigation? If positive.....so what?

Exactly!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2019, 09:07:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no mention in any DPD, FBI or SS report of its having been verified that no curtain rods had been taken from the Paine household. An absurd omission!

In Reclaiming History, Mr Bugliosi imagines the key questions running through Captain Fritz's mind:

"Were any curtain rods found at the Depository, or in Oswald?s room? Did his apartment need curtain rods?"

Notice the question Mr Bugliosi leaves out:

"Were any curtain rods missing from Mrs Paine's garage?"

Maybe it was there in the draft text, but didn't survive proofreading stage!  :D

While I have no problem accepting that a couple of curtain rods were found somewhere in or near the TSBD that caused someone to suspect that they might be the curtain rods that Frazier said that Lee told him he had in the flimsy brown paper sack that morning.

And I suspect that it was a TSBD employee like Harold Norman, or Bonnie Ray Williams ( just as an example) who discovered them and told SS agent Howlett that he knew where some curtain rod were hidden. 

How could anybody know if they were curtain rods missing from the Paines garage....??   Ruth Paine may have been able to state the number of curtain rods that she had stored in the garage but ... Who could verify that number was accurate??   

"Were any curtain rods missing from Mrs Paine's garage?"

How could the answer be established with 100% certainty?   
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Anthony Clayden on April 02, 2019, 09:31:42 PM
There is a way to make the evidence fit in regards the curtain rods, that doesn't involve to much contortion to do so (but is alas now unprovable)

Oswald gets up to go to work.
He has a lunch made by Marina but Marina is still n bed.
The lunch is in the fridge and not bagged.
Oswald does not have a bag.
Being a poor person, Oswald retrieves a bag from  the garage for his lunch, not to fussed about the size or type, just wants something to carry lunch.
This bag had curtain rods in it which he removed and placed his lunch in.
Puts oversized lunch bag in car.
Frazier asks Oswald about the bag, Oswald miss hears or misconstrues the comment to be about why the bag is so big, or what it used to contain.
(It is an unusual size for a lunch bag, and placing his lunch in a bag that used to have curtain rods is unusual. He maybe was originally going to take the curtain rods but decided against it an used the bag for his lunch.)
He mentions in an oblique way about the curtain rods to Frazier. Frazier took this to mean there were curtain rods in the bag.
Keeping in mind Oswald was likely emotionally churned following his conversation with Marina and his decision to leave the wedding band and money, and his reported lack of communicative ability in general conversation or small talk. (eg Geneva Hines comments)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2019, 09:40:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a way to make the evidence fit in regards the curtain rods, that doesn't involve to much contortion to do so (but is alas now unprovable)

Oswald gets up to go to work.
He has a lunch made by Marina but Marina is still n bed.
The lunch is in the fridge and not bagged.
Oswald does not have a bag.
Being a poor person, Oswald retrieves a bag from  the garage for his lunch, not to fussed about the size or type, just wants something to carry lunch.
This bag had curtain rods in it which he removed and placed his lunch in.
Puts oversized lunch bag in car.
Frazier asks Oswald about the bag, Oswald miss hears or misconstrues the comment to be about why the bag is so big, or what it used to contain.
(It is an unusual size for a lunch bag, and placing his lunch in a bag that used to have curtain rods is unusual. He maybe was originally going to take the curtain rods but decided against it an used the bag for his lunch.)
He mentions in an oblique way about the curtain rods to Frazier. Frazier took this to mean there were curtain rods in the bag.
Keeping in mind Oswald was likely emotionally churned following his conversation with Marina and his decision to leave the wedding band and money, and his reported lack of communicative ability in general conversation or small talk. (eg Geneva Hines comments)

Except, Frazier said that Lee said he wanted to pick up some curtain rods .....That was one of the reasons for the Thursday trip to Irving.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 02, 2019, 11:49:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
While I have no problem accepting that a couple of curtain rods were found somewhere in or near the TSBD that caused someone to suspect that they might be the curtain rods that Frazier said that Lee told him he had in the flimsy brown paper sack that morning.

And I suspect that it was a TSBD employee like Harold Norman, or Bonnie Ray Williams ( just as an example) who discovered them and told SS agent Howlett that he knew where some curtain rod were hidden. 

How could anybody know if they were curtain rods missing from the Paines garage....??   Ruth Paine may have been able to state the number of curtain rods that she had stored in the garage but ... Who could verify that number was accurate??   

"Were any curtain rods missing from Mrs Paine's garage?"

How could the answer be established with 100% certainty?   

But! We can state with 100% certainty that, had Ms Paine asserted with any degree of confidence that no curtain rods were missing after the assassination, much hay would have been made of this fact by the authorities. 'Proof that Oswald lied...', etc.

Instead we get------up until Ms Paine's WC appearances------not a single reference in the official record to this elementary question's even having been asked by DPD, FBI or SS.

Speaks volumes---especially when put together with the documentary proof we have that 2 curtain rods other than the 2 taken from the Paine garage on 23 March were tested for Mr Oswald's prints!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 02, 2019, 11:54:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a way to make the evidence fit in regards the curtain rods, that doesn't involve to much contortion to do so (but is alas now unprovable)

Oswald gets up to go to work.
He has a lunch made by Marina but Marina is still n bed.
The lunch is in the fridge and not bagged.
Oswald does not have a bag.
Being a poor person, Oswald retrieves a bag from  the garage for his lunch, not to fussed about the size or type, just wants something to carry lunch.
This bag had curtain rods in it which he removed and placed his lunch in.


How does this make the evidence fit in? We have 2 curtain rods, origin unstated, being tested for Mr Oswald's prints at the same time as 2 curtain rods still on a shelf in the Paine garage!

The logical and straightforward explanation is that Mr Oswald took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage that morning, and they turned up in the Depository at some point after the assassination. (Why else would they have been fingerprinted?)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2019, 12:54:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does this make the evidence fit in? We have 2 curtain rods, origin unstated, being tested for Mr Oswald's prints at the same time as 2 curtain rods still on a shelf in the Paine garage!

The logical and straightforward explanation is that Mr Oswald took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage that morning, and they turned up in the Depository at some point after the assassination. (Why else would they have been fingerprinted?)

 Thumb1:

How do we know that thee weren't six or eight or a dozen curtain rods in the Paines garage??.....   Isn't it possible that Marina had curtain rods ....she did decorate several apartments during the year before the assassination....

I'm simply asking HOW can we determine the number of curtain rods in the Paine garage?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 03, 2019, 07:06:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do we know that thee weren't six or eight or a dozen curtain rods in the Paines garage??.....   Isn't it possible that Marina had curtain rods ....she did decorate several apartments during the year before the assassination....

I'm simply asking HOW can we determine the number of curtain rods in the Paine garage?

We need only determine the state of play as of 7.30pm on 23 March 1964:
-------------2 white enameled curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's lab (reason for being there: testing for Mr Oswald's prints)
-------------1 white & 1 cream enameled curtain rod in the Paine garage.

The anachronistic fact that the latter were named 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276' eight days after the former had been submitted with the notation 'marked 275 & 276' gives away the WC's switcheroo!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2019, 02:23:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We need only determine the state of play as of 7.30pm on 23 March 1964:
-------------2 white enameled curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's lab (reason for being there: testing for Mr Oswald's prints)
-------------1 white & 1 cream enameled curtain rod in the Paine garage.

The anachronistic fact that the latter were named 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276' eight days after the former had been submitted with the notation 'marked 275 & 276' gives away the WC's switcheroo!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html)

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

I believe that there was deception and skulduggery being performed by the Warren Commission's agent, Mr.  Howlett....  The same liar that demonstrated how Lee Oswald could have hastily dumped the eight pound carcano with a bulky scope mounted on it behind the boxes near the top of the stairs on the sixth floor ...while using a light piece of 1 X 3 as a substitute for the carcano.   

Not only was Howett using a grossly inaccurate substitute for the carcano ....He didn't even attempt to place it at place the carcano was actually discovered by Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone....   They discovered the carcano lying on the floor beneath a wooden pallet ( Weitzman referred to it as a "flat") and that flat was 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall....or about a foot and a half further south than the place where Howlett inserted that small light weight piece of 1X3 between some boxes of books.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on April 03, 2019, 02:52:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a way to make the evidence fit in regards the curtain rods, that doesn't involve to much contortion to do so (but is alas now unprovable)

Oswald gets up to go to work.
He has a lunch made by Marina but Marina is still n bed.
The lunch is in the fridge and not bagged.
Oswald does not have a bag.
Being a poor person, Oswald retrieves a bag from  the garage for his lunch, not to fussed about the size or type, just wants something to carry lunch.
This bag had curtain rods in it which he removed and placed his lunch in.
Puts oversized lunch bag in car.
Frazier asks Oswald about the bag, Oswald miss hears or misconstrues the comment to be about why the bag is so big, or what it used to contain.
(It is an unusual size for a lunch bag, and placing his lunch in a bag that used to have curtain rods is unusual. He maybe was originally going to take the curtain rods but decided against it an used the bag for his lunch.)
He mentions in an oblique way about the curtain rods to Frazier. Frazier took this to mean there were curtain rods in the bag.
Keeping in mind Oswald was likely emotionally churned following his conversation with Marina and his decision to leave the wedding band and money, and his reported lack of communicative ability in general conversation or small talk. (eg Geneva Hines comments)

So much bad luck that day!  All lending itself to Oswald's guilt.  And his rifle is missing too.  LOL.  Has anyone ever carried his lunch to work in a bag two feet or more long?  Other than Fred Flintstone?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2019, 03:31:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So much bad luck that day!  All lending itself to Oswald's guilt.  And his rifle is missing too.  LOL.

"His rifle is missing" because Marina saw a portion of what she took to be a rifle in a rolled up and tied blanket six weeks earlier.

LOL indeed.

Quote
  Has anyone ever carried his lunch to work in a bag two feet or more long?  Other than Fred Flintstone?

Therefore he was carrying a 40-inch rifle in a two foot bag.  LOL.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 03, 2019, 07:23:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So much bad luck that day!  All lending itself to Oswald's guilt.

How do 2 curtain rods beings submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3.15.64 lend themselves to Mr Oswald's guilt?

You still can't answer this, can you, Mr Smith?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 03, 2019, 08:07:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From Mr D von Pein's blogspot exploration of the curtain rods issue:

"[...]

5.) No curtain rods were found in the TSBD in the days and weeks after
the assassination. (Warren Commission Exhibit #2640 verifies this fact
via Roy Truly's statement in a September 2, 1964, FBI report.)

6.) Oswald did not take any curtain rods out of the TSBD when he left
that building on 11/22/63. (If he did, he disposed of them somewhere
between the Depository Building on Elm Street and his roominghouse at
1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, because he definitely did not
enter the roominghouse with any sort of package. If he had, the package
would have been discovered by police.)

[...]"


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html)

Question for Mr von Pein!

How can your conclusion that no curtain rods were found be considered safe if, as the dates on the document below prove, the 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints were not the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage by Agent Howlett during Ms Paine's on-the-record testimony of 23 March?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

Thanking you, Mr von Pein, for all your tireless efforts to promote Truth and Justice!  Thumb1:

Has Mr von Pein lost interest in the curtain rods issue?

On the off-chance he hasn't, and the above merely escaped his attention...

Bumped for Mr von Pein!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 04, 2019, 02:57:22 PM
So!

Silence from Mr von Pein!

Silence from Mr Nickerson!

Silence from Mr Galbraith!

Silence from Mr Navarro (albeit he did have the honesty to acknowledge the problem before disappearing)!

Cowardly flight from Mr May!

Dunderheaded diversion from Mr Smith!

Is there not a single Warren Defender/Oswald Accuser able to offer a rational counter-explanation for the contents of this form?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2019, 12:47:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So!

Silence from Mr von Pein!

Silence from Mr Nickerson!

Silence from Mr Galbraith!

Silence from Mr Navarro (albeit he did have the honesty to acknowledge the problem before disappearing)!

Cowardly flight from Mr May!

Dunderheaded diversion from Mr Smith!

Is there not a single Warren Defender/Oswald Accuser able to offer a rational counter-explanation for the contents of this form?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

 Thumb1:

John Iacoletti posted this first floor diagram.....   Is it possible that Lee could have removed his sandwich and oraple from the sack and then slipped the curtain rods under the steps to the loading dock before opening the door onto the loading dock....  Thus he would have had nothing in his hand when he entered the 1st floor Shipping room ???

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/first-floor-vestibule.png)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 06, 2019, 01:33:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John Iacoletti posted this first floor diagram.....   Is it possible that Lee could have removed his sandwich and oraple from the sack and then slipped the curtain rods under the steps to the loading dock before opening the door onto the loading dock....  Thus he would have had nothing in his hand when he entered the 1st floor Shipping room ???

He could have even dumped the two foot flimsy bag somewhere in the parking area.  Frazier was watching trains and then could no longer see the bag by the time Oswald entered the door of the annex.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2019, 09:48:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So!

Silence from Mr von Pein!

Silence from Mr Nickerson!

Silence from Mr Galbraith!

Silence from Mr Navarro (albeit he did have the honesty to acknowledge the problem before disappearing)!

Cowardly flight from Mr May!

Dunderheaded diversion from Mr Smith!

Is there not a single Warren Defender/Oswald Accuser able to offer a rational counter-explanation for the contents of this form?

(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Why are you having such a problem with this? On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab. The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24. However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time. There is obviously some documentation missing. Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 02:53:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are you having such a problem with this? On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab. The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24. However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time. There is obviously some documentation missing. Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.

Thank you for your belated response, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Now! Let's take your points one at a time, shall we?

On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab.

Correct!  Thumb1:

The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24.

Correct!  Thumb1:

However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time.

Incorrect! We know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that two curtain rods--------not "the curtain rods" already submitted to the fingerprinting lab---------were released to Howlett on 23 March.

Are you suggesting that Ms Paine released two curtain rods twice---------and that she and Agent Howlett conspired to hide this fact from the Warren Commission?

There is obviously some documentation missing.

Incorrect! You must obviously posit some missing documentation in order to explain away the dates. Very different thing!

Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.

Wild, and rather desperate, speculation!

The Crime Scene Search Section form makes it a matter of record that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March.

Besides, why would two curtain rods released from the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result have demonstrated?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 07:18:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Incorrect! We know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that two curtain rods--------not "the curtain rods" already submitted to the fingerprinting lab---------were released to Howlett on 23 March.

Hmmm....are we talking about two different pairs of curtain rods here? I'm confused.  ???

Quote
Are you suggesting that Ms Paine released two curtain rods twice---------and that she and Agent Howlett conspired to hide this fact from the Warren Commission?

Nope.

Quote
Incorrect! You must obviously posit some missing documentation in order to explain away the dates. Very different thing!


I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Would not missing documentation fill in the gaps?

Quote
Wild, and rather desperate, speculation!

The Crime Scene Search Section form makes it a matter of record that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March.

Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276? Try to do so without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.

Quote
Besides, why would two curtain rods released from the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result have demonstrated?

Don't know. Don't care.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 12:12:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hmmm....are we talking about two different pairs of curtain rods here? I'm confused.  ???

You certainly are confused, Mr Nickerson!

We are talking about 4 curtain rods here:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March and released on 24 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

Quote
I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Would not missing documentation fill in the gaps?

There are no gaps. There are 2 different pairs of curtain rods:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

Quote
Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276?

They explain themselves: they had lain undisturbed in Ms Paine's garage since before the assassination.

Quote
Don't know. Don't care.

So you can't explain why 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints. Got it  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 06:30:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276? Try to do so without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.

Isn?t it wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that it?s the same curtain rods taken out of the garage earlier without Ruth Paine?s knowledge and then returned, again without her knowledge, in order to be ?found? again? And ?documentation? for all of that is just ?missing??
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 08:27:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You certainly are confused, Mr Nickerson!

We are talking about 4 curtain rods here:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March and released on 24 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

There are no gaps. There are 2 different pairs of curtain rods:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

They explain themselves: they had lain undisturbed in Ms Paine's garage since before the assassination.

So you can't explain why 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints. Got it  Thumb1:

Yes, I definitely am confused. You say that the rods explain themselves. Well, I'm going to need you to interpret their explanation for me. You claim that they laid undisturbed in the Paine garage since before the assassination and that they were different from the two that were submitted to the DPD crime lab on March 15. How is it then that they were of the same description and were given the same number designations(275  and 276) as those submitted on March 15? Keeping in mind that Howlett was the official who personally handled "both sets", what are the odds that they were actually two different sets of curtain rods?

Please explain it all for me, without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 08:33:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn?t it wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that it?s the same curtain rods taken out of the garage earlier without Ruth Paine?s knowledge and then returned, again without her knowledge, in order to be ?found? again? And ?documentation? for all of that is just ?missing??

Is it really wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that Ruth Paine was not aware of every single item that was removed from her garage and possibly returned by the numerous investigators who sifted through its contents in the days , weeks and months that followed the assassination?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 08:36:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn?t it wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that it?s the same curtain rods taken out of the garage earlier without Ruth Paine?s knowledge and then returned, again without her knowledge, in order to be ?found? again? And ?documentation? for all of that is just ?missing??

Mr. JENNER - Now, the police picked up some books, did they not, and other papers and things of which you were not aware at the time, you weren't present when they did that, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - Most of what they took I did not see.


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 08:46:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. JENNER - Now, the police picked up some books, did they not, and other papers and things of which you were not aware at the time, you weren't present when they did that, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - Most of what they took I did not see.


I think you missed this part:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 08:50:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you missed this part:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

What makes you think that I missed that part?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 09:10:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I definitely am confused. You say that the rods explain themselves. Well, I'm going to need you to interpret their explanation for me. You claim that they laid undisturbed in the Paine garage since before the assassination

No, Ms Paine claimed that! And you are claiming that Agent Howlett knowingly omitted to mention otherwise to the WC. Thumb1:

Quote
and that they were different from the two that were submitted to the DPD crime lab on March 15. How is it then that they were of the same description and were given the same number designations(275  and 276) as those submitted on March 15?

So they were given the designation 275 and 276 on 15 March, not 23 March? Think before you answer, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

They're not quite 'the same description' by the way:
--------------Agent Howlett describes the 23 March Paine garage rods as "one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored";
--------------Lieutenant Day's Crime Scene Search Section form entry makes no distinction as to color, describing them both merely as "white enameled".

Quote
Keeping in mind that Howlett was the official who personally handled "both sets", what are the odds that they were actually two different sets of curtain rods?

Very high, actually! You and I agree that Mr Howlett lied during Ms Paine's 23 March testimony in Irving; we just have different opinions as to the substance of his lie.

I'm going to give you a challenge, Mr Nickerson. Here is a segment from that Ruth Paine testimony of 23 March. I have added a sentence. Can you find it?

Mr. JENNER - Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT - There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored. But I already knew that, I put them back there myself the other day.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 09:19:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes you think that I missed that part?

Because she knew those particular items were in her garage undisturbed since the assassination.

So how did Howlett get them on the 15th, and how and why were they returned only to be ?found? again?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 09:25:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because she knew those particular items were in her garage undisturbed since the assassination.

So how did Howlett get them on the 15th, and how and why were they returned only to be ?found? again?

Good question x 2!

Also: why the heck would 2 curtain rods which have lain undisturbed in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

Mr Nickerson claims not to care about this question, but that's just the LNer way of saying, 'I have no answer to that at this moment'.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2019, 09:47:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you missed this part:

Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

How utterly STUPID!!.....  The police had been through that garage with a fine tooth comb....and Prs Paine has the unmitigated audacity to claim that the curtain rods were in exactly the same place in Marchof 64, as they were on November 21, 1963......  Ludicrous!!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 09:55:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

How utterly STUPID!!.....  The police had been through that garage with a fine tooth comb....and Prs Paine has the unmitigated audacity to claim that the curtain rods were in exactly the same place in Marchof 64, as they were on November 21, 1963......  Ludicrous!!

'Utterly STUPID' is about the size of it alright, Mr Cakebread!  Thumb1:

Given what Mr Frazier was saying the evening of 11/22, and its potential significance for the question of Mr Oswald's guilt or innocence, the chances that curtain rods were not one of the very first things the police & FBI would have looked for in the Paine home are nil.

And yet there is no mention anywhere of such a search, let alone its result. 'Obviously there must be some documentation missing'!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, Ms Paine claimed that!

How did she know that someone hadn't removed them at one point and returned them in time for the deposition? She didn't.

Mr. McCLOY - They didn't take any rods from the garage that you are aware of?
Mrs. PAINE - You are aware what the police took. I never did know exactly what they took. I have never heard any mention of the rods having left.


Quote
And you are claiming that Agent Howlett knowingly omitted to mention otherwise to the WC. Thumb1:

Nope.

Quote
So they were given the designation 275 and 276 on 15 March, not 23 March? Think before you answer, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

They were given the designations 275 and 276 on 15 March. It's right there in red ink. Why would I think any different?

Quote
They're not quite 'the same description' by the way:
--------------Agent Howlett describes the 23 March Paine garage rods as "one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored";
--------------Lieutenant Day's Crime Scene Search Section form entry makes no distinction as to color, describing them both merely as "white enameled".

"White enameled" is close enough". It's the numbers that really stand out though.

Quote
Very high, actually! You and I agree that Mr Howlett lied during Ms Paine's 23 March testimony in Irving; we just have different opinions as to the substance of his lie.

I haven't said that Howlett lied. Where do you get that from?

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 09:59:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given what Mr Frazier was saying the evening of 11/22, and its potential significance for the question of Mr Oswald's guilt or innocence, the chances that curtain rods were not one of the very first things the police & FBI would have looked for in the Paine home are nil.

Exactly.

The police thought that folk dancing phonograph records and headache tablets were pertinent to their investigation, but not a brown paper wrapped package of curtain rods?  Or an imperial reflex camera for that matter...

C'mon....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 10:00:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How did she know that someone hadn't removed them at one point and returned them in time for the deposition? She didn't.

What did they do, Tim?  Break into her house to return the curtain rods?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 10:04:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because she knew those particular items were in her garage undisturbed since the assassination.

Did she? Did she know for sure or did she just assume that they were still in her garage undisturbed?

Quote
So how did Howlett get them on the 15th, and how and why were they returned only to be ?found? again?

He went there on the 15th and removed them.  As to why they were returned only to be "found" again, one can only speculate. Perhaps to dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 10:06:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What did they do, Tim?  Break into her house to return the curtain rods?

The curtain rods were not in her house. No doubt,  they had been given permission to search through the items in that garage.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:06:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How did she know that someone hadn't removed them at one point and returned them in time for the deposition? She didn't.

Mr. McCLOY - They didn't take any rods from the garage that you are aware of?
Mrs. PAINE - You are aware what the police took. I never did know exactly what they took. I have never heard any mention of the rods having left.


Nope.

But the whole point of the exercise in going in to Ms Paine's garage was to hand over 2 curtain rods that had lain there undisturbed since before the assassination. Either Ms Paine and Agent Howlett are both lying, or Agent Howlett alone is lying.

And-----as we are about to see-----Mr Jenner of the WC must be lying too.

You're turning into quite the conspiracy theorist, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Quote
They were given the designations 275 and 276 on 15 March. It's right there in red ink. Why would I think any different?

 :D But they hadn't been given that designation by Mr Jenner of the WC yet! Aren't you even aware of how Mr Jenner came to assign them the numbers 275 and 276 on 23 March?

Quote
I haven't said that Howlett lied. Where do you get that from?

 :D  Your kooky explanation requires that he only pretend to 'find' the rods in the garage on 23 March.

In your desperation to get out of the corner you're in, Mr Nickerson, you've turned to accusing the WC of staging a sham testimony session. Quite a development for a Warren Apologist!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:11:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did she? Did she know for sure or did she just assume that they were still in her garage undisturbed?

He went there on the 15th and removed them.  As to why they were returned only to be "found" again, one can only speculate. Perhaps to dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located.

This is just priceless. We have a die-hard LNer, cornered by the facts, resorting to accusing the WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 10:13:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the whole point of the exercise in going in to Ms Paine's garage was to hand over 2 curtain rods that had lain there undisturbed since before the assassination.

Was it? Are you sure?

 
Quote
Either Ms Paine and Agent Howlett are both lying, or Agent Howlett alone is lying.

What was the lie exactly?

Quote
And-----as we are about to see-----Mr Jenner of the WC must be lying too.

Oh goody..I can't wait.

 
Quote
:D But they hadn't been given that designation by Mr Jenner of the WC yet! Aren't you even aware of how Mr Jenner came to assign them the numbers 275 and 276 on 23 March?


I'm aware of how Jenner came to assign them the numbers 275 and 276. He just added Ruth's name to the numbers that had already been attached to them on March 15.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:13:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly.

The police thought that folk dancing phonograph records and headache tablets were pertinent to their investigation, but not a brown paper wrapped package of curtain rods?  Or an imperial reflex camera for that matter...

C'mon....

Whether or not Mr Oswald had actually brought an apple to work that day, as he had claimed, was a further issue. Perhaps all the remaining apples in Ms Paine's kitchen were submitted for fingerprinting as well? Obviously there must be some missing documentation on this.   :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 10:14:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is just priceless. We have a die-hard LNer, cornered by the facts, resorting to accusing the WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!  :D

I'm not accusing the WC of falsifying evidence.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:24:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm aware of how Jenner came to assign them the numbers 275 and 276. He just added Ruth's name to the numbers that had already been attached to them on March 15.

 :D 

Nope! Mr Jenner chose-----------for no clear reason------------to begin with the number 270 when marking items taken on-the-record from the Paine home:

(https://i.imgur.com/qLM7uvN.jpg)

Funny how he just so happened to arrive at 275 by the time he reached the first curtain rod! And just look at those essential items he picked up before reaching the curtain rods. No fewer than 3 pieces of string!  :D

On your own scenario, Mr Nickerson, the choice of 270 as a starting point, as well as the number of items reached before 275 was reached, was part of an elaborate sham for the benefit of the American public:
---------------The rods were being 'found' by the very man who had submitted them for testing 8 days earlier
---------------The WC testimony taker contrived his arrival at 275 for the first curtain rod.

Welcome to the CT community, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:26:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not accusing the WC of falsifying evidence.

 :D

You are accusing your beloved WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2019, 11:21:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As to why they were returned only to be "found" again, one can only speculate. Perhaps to dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located.

That?s quite possibly the silliest speculation I?ve ever seen on any aspect of the case.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 11:27:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That?s quite possibly the silliest speculation I?ve ever seen on any aspect of the case.

-------------------"As to why they were returned only to be "found" again, one can only speculate. Perhaps to dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located."

-------------------"There is obviously some documentation missing."


Mr Doyle must be worried that his Kook's Crown is about to be stolen!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 11:30:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D 

Nope! Mr Jenner chose-----------for no clear reason------------to begin with the number 270 when marking items taken on-the-record from the Paine home:

(https://i.imgur.com/qLM7uvN.jpg)

Funny how he just so happened to arrive at 275 by the time he reached the first curtain rod! And just look at those essential items he picked up before reaching the curtain rods. No fewer than 3 pieces of string!  :D

On your own scenario, Mr Nickerson, the choice of 270 as a starting point, as well as the number of items reached before 275 was reached, was part of an elaborate sham for the benefit of the American public:
---------------The rods were being 'found' by the very man who had submitted them for testing 8 days earlier
---------------The WC testimony taker contrived his arrival at 275 for the first curtain rod.

Welcome to the CT community, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Jenner began with #270 with the known numbers of the two curtain rods in mind. There's nothing funny or conspiratorial about it. You are attempting to inflate this into something it's not and you're looking like a complete fool in the process.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 11:30:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

You are accusing your beloved WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!

How so?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 11:31:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That?s quite possibly the silliest speculation I?ve ever seen on any aspect of the case.

Oh really? Let's see you come up with something better then.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2019, 11:32:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
-------------------"As to why they were returned only to be "found" again, one can only speculate. Perhaps to dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located."

-------------------"There is obviously some documentation missing."


Mr Doyle must be worried that his Kook's Crown is about to be stolen!  :D

Doyle has that crown does he? I think that's debatable.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 11:46:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jenner began with #270 with the known numbers of the two curtain rods in mind. There's nothing funny or conspiratorial about it. You are attempting to inflate this into something it's not and you're looking like a complete fool in the process.

 :D

You are attempting to explain away this bizarre behavior on Howlett and Jenner's part and you're looking like a complete and utter fool in the process!

To summarise where you're at on this issue:
1. Agent Howlett took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage without her knowledge and submitted them for testing for Mr Oswald's prints (reason for doing this: you haven't a notion!)
2. Agent Howlett got back the curtain rods and----again without Ms Paine's knowing it----put them back in her garage
3. Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner then conspired to stage the entire on-the-record 'discovery' of the rods in the garage, even going so far as to contrive a way of coming to the number 275 for the first curtain rod
4. The reason for this elaborate sham? "[T]o dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located" (i.e. you haven't a notion!).  :D

You make these wild and rather desperate speculations not because they make a lick of sense but because the Crime Scene Search Form contains dates inconvenient to the theory put forward by your 'dramatically confirming' WC. And your wild and rather desperate speculations are underpinned by---------my favorite part--------'documentation' that is 'obviously' 'missing'.

Thanks for playing, Mr Nickerson, it's been a hoot watching you wriggle on a hook of your own making!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 11:49:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How so?

By putting together an elaborately sham on-the-record receipt of evidence by the WC.

This is your own explanation, Mr Nickerson!  :D
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 11:51:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doyle has that crown does he? I think that's debatable.

You're losing this debate badly, Mr Nickerson, and I can tell you don't like it one bit...

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 12:07:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

You are attempting to explain away this bizarre behavior on Howlett and Jenner's part and you're looking like a complete and utter fool in the process!

To summarise where you're at on this issue:
1. Agent Howlett took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage without her knowledge and submitted them for testing for Mr Oswald's prints (reason for doing this: you haven't a notion!)
2. Agent Howlett got back the curtain rods and----again without Ms Paine's knowing it----put them back in her garage
3. Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner then conspired to stage the entire on-the-record 'discovery' of the rods in the garage, even going so far as to contrive a way of coming to the number 275 for the first curtain rod
4. The reason for this elaborate sham? "[T]o dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located" (i.e. you haven't a notion!).  :D

You make these wild and rather desperate speculations not because they make a lick of sense but because the Crime Scene Search Form contains dates inconvenient to the theory put forward by your 'dramatically confirming' WC. And your wild and rather desperate speculations are underpinned by---------my favorite part--------'documentation' that is 'obviously' 'missing'.


Every one of those points is reasonable, with your snide remarks removed of course.
I have done something that you have not. I've addressed the questions that you've directed at me. You've avoided those directed at you. You haven't explained yourself to me yet. That is, you have avoided explaining your two different pairs of curtain rods that ended up with the same numbers attached to them. Why is that? What do you have? Where did the two curtain rods submitted on March 15 come from? How is it that they had the same numbers attached to them as the two curtain rods that were removed from a shelf in the Paine garage on March 23?

Come on Alan, put up or shut up.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 01:08:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Every one of those points is reasonable, with your snide remarks removed of course.
I have done something that you have not. I've addressed the questions that you've directed at me. You've avoided those directed at you. You haven't explained yourself to me yet. That is, you have avoided explaining your two different pairs of curtain rods that ended up with the same numbers attached to them. Why is that? What do you have? Where did the two curtain rods submitted on March 15 come from? How is it that they had the same numbers attached to them as the two curtain rods that were removed from a shelf in the Paine garage on March 23?

Come on Alan, put up or shut up.

 :D

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world!  Thumb1:

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Denis Pointing on April 08, 2019, 02:40:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world!  Thumb1:

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.

 Thumb1:

Hi Alan, there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this. It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5. Would they have even written the measurement that way back then? I would have expected the 'old fashioned way' of plain feet and inches. Anyway, moot point as there were no markings.
You raise some good points, good questions, good post...and then start really overreaching by claiming, without any proof what-so-ever, that rods had also been found at the TSBD and 'swapped' with the rods found in the Paine's garage. There really is a much simpler and logical explanation, which admittedly I can't prove, but you certainly can't disprove.
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather disingenuous and instructed Howlet to remove the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later. Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'. Truthful answer Alan,..I don't know for sure and neither does anybody else.
I realise you're not going to accept this explanation, that you'd much rather stick to your 'rods found in TSBD' scenario. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative as you requested, that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you.
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:46:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Alan, there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this. It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5. Would they have even written the measurement that way back then? I would have expected the 'old fashioned way' of plain feet and inches. Anyway, moot point as there were no markings.
You raise some good points, good questions, good post...and then start really overreaching by claiming, without any proof what-so-ever, that rods had also been found at the TSBD and 'swapped' with the rods found in the Paine's garage. There really is a much simpler and logical explanation, which admittedly I can't prove, but you certainly can't disprove.
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather ingenious and had Howlet take the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later. Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'. Truthful answer Alan,..I don't know for sure and neither does anybody else.
I realise you're not going to accept this explanation, that you'd much rather stick to your 'rods found in TSBD' explanation. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you.

Hello Mr Pointing, and thank you for what is a genuinely substantive response!  Thumb1:

Let me take your key points in sequence. I don't wish to point-score with you on this, merely to respond as clearly & honestly as I can.

there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this.

But I am arguing that
----------the curtain rods in the Archives (kept there as Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276) are not the curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant Day on 15 March;
----------those curtain rods were never seen again after they left the crime lab in Mr Howlett's 'care';
----------Mr Jenner's shenanigans with the numbers (275 & 276) give the game away as to the switcheroo (the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting 'becoming' the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage).

It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5.

Again, we are talking about different curtain rods here. We have never seen the 2 curtain rods found and submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March, therefore we cannot say they were both exactly 27.5 inches long. For all we know, Ms Paine herself may have scribbled 2-7-[supernumeral] 5 and 2-7-[supernumeral] 6 in pencil on the rods. Lieutenant Day, not understanding the meaning of the numbers, just wrote down what he saw:

(https://i.imgur.com/hHAsWFB.jpg)

If these numbers have nothing to do with the rods' length, where did they come from? Why these particular numbers?

As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather ingenious and had Howlet take the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later.

The problem with this is that the 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting 4 days before Ms Paine's first discussion (Washington, 19 March) of the 2 rods in her garage.

Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'.

Is it really credible that, in the three-and-a-half months prior to 15 March 1964, not a soul in DPD or FBI would have thought to verify that
a) Ms Paine had indeed had curtain rods?
b) none had gone missing after 11/21/63?

The official documentary record's complete silence on this potentially case-defining issue speaks volumes IMO. Something was wrong, and no one wanted to draw attention to it.

It was only when 2 curtain rods turned up at the Depository that the issue had to be faced and 'resolved'. Cue a carefully choreographed on-the-record testimony taking at the Paine home in Irving.

Now, as to the fingerprinting. It is a key aspect of this whole puzzle...

Mr Jenner and Agent Howlett would have had to have a pretty good reason to go to the trouble of deceiving Ms Paine and staging the on-the-record (and bizarrely belated) 'discovery' of 2 curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage. All in order to have them tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints? Makes no sense IMO! Suppose the test had come up positive for Mr Oswald's prints. How exactly would that have furthered the investigation? It would have been a meaningless result. So what if Mr Oswald had at some time handled 2 curtain rods which had never even left the Paine home!

My deduction that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March were found at the Depository is not one I make rashly.

It is surely the only scenario that would actually justify
-------------a test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
-------------a subsequent staged discovery of 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, involving a contrived arrival at the numbers marked on the 2 curtain rods that had been submitted for testing 8 days earlier.

I believe, in short, that my theory, however startling, is the only one thus far put forward that accounts without unnecessary complication for the evidence we have before us.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 04:52:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world!  Thumb1:

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.

 Thumb1:

You're short on specifics but let's see if I understand you correctly.

John Howlett found two curtain rods in the TSBD and submitted them to the DPD crime lab on March 15. They were marked 275 and 276 which stood for their respective lengths of 27.5 and 27.6 inches. This represented a problem for "them". Although, it's not clear why Howlett, who must have been one of "them", ever submitted the rods to the DPD in the first place. Nevertheless, they now had a problem on their hands. What to do? What to do? And then two days later , by a stroke of luck, Michael Paine informs them that there were some curtain rods in the garage at the residence of his estranged wife. Paine informs them that the rods are about 32.5 to 36 inches in length. A little long but close enough, so they decide to run with it. What about the numbers marked on the two rods? What to do about those? Not a problem. They'll just start numbering the items of evidence, that they'll attach Ruth's name to, at 270. Piece of cake. Jenner can handle it. He works at it a bit beforehand to set things up for the big day. And then wouldn't you know it, not only were the rods there, they were also the exact lengths of the two that resided in the DPD crime lab. The Gods were smiling upon "them". All that was left to do was for Howlett to head to the DPD crime lab and have those two rods released to him and then he can make them disappear. Which I guess he must have.

I have got that right Alan? And it's free of any wild, and rather desperate, speculation, right? 

As I said, I'm not sure why they tested the rods for prints. Other items were checked for prints for no apparent reason. The CSS form does not specify that the sole purpose of checking them for prints was to determine if Oswald's were on them.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 04:53:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Alan, there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this. It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5. Would they have even written the measurement that way back then? I would have expected the 'old fashioned way' of plain feet and inches. Anyway, moot point as there were no markings.
You raise some good points, good questions, good post...and then start really overreaching by claiming, without any proof what-so-ever, that rods had also been found at the TSBD and 'swapped' with the rods found in the Paine's garage. There really is a much simpler and logical explanation, which admittedly I can't prove, but you certainly can't disprove.
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather disingenuous and instructed Howlet to remove the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later. Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'. Truthful answer Alan,..I don't know for sure and neither does anybody else.
I realise you're not going to accept this explanation, that you'd much rather stick to your 'rods found in TSBD' scenario. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative as you requested, that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you.

Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error. That is, the curtain rods were submitted to the DPD crime lab by Howlett on Mar 23, not Mar 15. The numbers 275 and 276 had been placed on them earlier that day during the deposition of Ruth Paine.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 05:20:06 AM

Affidavit Of Ruth Hyde Paine

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss: Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964, and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of the Commission on Saturday, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

The "garage adventure" took place on the evening of 3/23/64?

If so the "date error"  theorists claim that the date that Howlett provided Day with the garage rods was actually the next morning, 3/24/94 at 9.45am. Day then processed the rods with particular focus on Oswald's prints and released them back to Howlett at 9.50am. Remarkably fast processing......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 05:29:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error.

That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 05:33:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest Jenner was being rather disingenuous and instructed Howlet to remove the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later.

If the WC was willing to be this devious and dishonest with a piece of evidence (not to mention breaking the law), what does that tell you about the integrity of the rest of the investigation?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 05:35:06 AM
Frazier and Randle testified that they discussed the trip to pick up the curtain rods on the evening of 21st November 1963.

Mr. BALL - Do you remember the night before, that is after you got home that night, that your sister asked you how it happened that Oswald came home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe she did or something. We got to talking about something and said, I told her that he had rode home with me and told her he said he was going to come home and pick up some curtain rods or something. I usually don't talk too much to my sister, sometimes she is not there when I am in because she is either at the store or something like that and I am either when she comes in as I say I am playing with the little nieces and we don't talk too much about work or something like that.
Mr. BALL - This night, this evening, do you remember you did talk to her about the fact that Oswald had come home with you?
Mr. FRAZIER - 1 believe I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell her what he had told you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I believe she said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he was going to get some curtain rods.

Mr. BALL. Do you recall on a Thursday night, November 21 that you saw Lee get out of Wesley's car?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. About what time of night was it?
Mrs. RANDLE. About 5:20, I believe, 5:15 or 5:25 something like that.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the grocery store.
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was unusual that he had come home that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I knew that he had--Friday is the only time he had ever ridden with him before which was a couple of times, I don't think he rode with him over three times, I am not sure but I never did know of him arriving, you know, except on Friday.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you mention to Wesley that night or did you ask Wesley that night how Lee happened to come home on Thursday?
Mrs. RANDLE. I might have asked him.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.
Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.
Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.
Mr. BALL. You mean that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After he came home?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you-
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.
Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.

Ignoring the apparent contradiction by LMR about the conversation. Why was there any confusion from her regarding the package on the morning of the 22nd? She knew Oswald's purpose according the Buell.....to get the rods....

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Coming back, Mrs. Frazier, I believe it was, drove up to the house as I was coming back with--no, it was Mrs. Bill Randle. She (Mrs. Randle) was a neighbor there and she was driving up to the house, so I asked her whether she knew anything about what had happened, and whether she had seen Lee Oswald, and she did tell me that Lee Oswald rode to work with her brother, which is Wesley Frazier, who was staying with her, and he rode to work with him that morning. She told me that she saw--she was up early in the morning and was drinking coffee, and saw Lee Harvey Oswald go across the front yard, across the yard carrying like a long package wrapped in something, carrying it from the Paine house to Wesley's car.
Mr. BELIN. Did she say how he was carrying the package?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; she didn't. I think we got an affidavit. In fact, I know we did, but I didn't take it.
Mr. BELIN. Did she say about how long the package was?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; she said it was long and wrapped in a paper or a box. That is all I remember her saying.

Seems she forgot about the curtain rods when talking to the police immediately after the shooting.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 06:24:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.

Is it? I don't really need to make an excuse for this evidence. It's not important. It's a small insignificant aspect of the case. I'm only trying to present a reasonable explanation. Something that you've yet to do. I've provided two so far. Why don't you give it a shot? Try to keep it from being too wild and keep your list of liars to a minimum.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 07:01:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is it? I don't really need to make an excuse for this evidence. It's not important. It's a small insignificant aspect of the case. I'm only trying to present a reasonable explanation. Something that you've yet to do. I've provided two so far. Why don't you give it a shot? Try to keep it from being too wild and keep your list of liars to a minimum.

I agree that the curtain rods found in the Paine garage on the evening of 3/24/63 were of no evidentiary value. Oswald's prints on them (or not) were meaningless.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 07:32:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that the curtain rods found in the Paine garage on the evening of 3/24/63 were of no evidentiary value. Oswald's prints on them (or not) were meaningless.

Colin, I sense that you haven't been following along here. Alan Ford postulates that the curtain rods removed from the Paine garage are not the curtain rods submitted to the DPD crime lab by John Howlett. He is claiming that the two rods submitted to the DPD crime lab were found at the TSBD. That they were in fact the curtain rods that Oswald told Buell Frazier were in the long package he carried with him on the morning of the 22nd. When asked why Oswald denied anything to do with curtain rods during his interrogations and interviews, Ford dismisses those who reported the denial as being liars.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Denis Pointing on April 08, 2019, 11:27:59 AM
Alan, for reasons of clarity, do you mind if I just cut to the very basics of your theory? If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that Jenner, agent Howlett and possibly others unknown, concocted the idea of staging a visit to RP's garage for the purpose of having it on record that 2no curtain rods were retrieved and sent to the police lab. Correct so far? The sole reason for this deception was to enable 2no curtain rods, previously found at the TSBD, to be in effect, 'lost'..yes?
Two obvious questions immediately begged to be asked; Why concoct and execute such a very complicated, not to say dangerous 'plot' in the first place? There was obviously no record of rods ever being found at the TSBD, if there was they must have been destroyed, so why not just destroy the TSBD rods as well? The next question is; Is it really feasible, that after going to such lengths to ''swape' the rods, agent Howell would be stupid enough to 'cock' everything up by submitting the TSBD rods nine days too early!! I'm sorry Alan, but IMO, the very basics of your theory don't make any sense, they just don't add up.
Alan, I'm very glad you brought this document to light, it was certainly something I'd missed, and it certainly needed to be addressed and answered. I'm afraid, at least in my humble opinion, it has been just that, addressed and answered. If you have anything new to substantiate your theory I'd be very happy to read it. Thank you.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 12:47:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Colin, I sense that you haven't been following along here. Alan Ford postulates that the curtain rods removed from the Paine garage are not the curtain rods submitted to the DPD crime lab by John Howlett. He is claiming that the two rods submitted to the DPD crime lab were found at the TSBD. That they were in fact the curtain rods that Oswald told Buell Frazier were in the long package he carried with him on the morning of the 22nd. When asked why Oswald denied anything to do with curtain rods during his interrogations and interviews, Ford dismisses those who reported the denial as being liars.

Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on April 08, 2019, 01:56:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

Again, Oswald told Frazier that he went to the Paine residence to obtain curtain rods.  The investigators were simply doing due diligence to check the only curtain rods found at that location to see if there was any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious why they check them.  A better question has been posed several times now.  If these were the curtain rods Oswald carried to the TSBD and the authorities knew that and had successfully suppressed them to frame Oswald, why bring them to light five months later and have them tested for Oswald's prints?  In that nutty scenario, the authorities had already succeeded in their objective in hiding the curtain rods.  They would also already know they were linked to Oswald.  So they would have every incentive in that scenario NOT to bring them light and there would be no point to test them for Oswald's prints.  It is completely absurd.  If there were any doubt, Ruth Paine confirmed these rods came from her garage and had been there since 11.22.    Oswald himself denied carrying any curtain rods.  To suggest these curtain rods were found at the TSBD is ridiculous.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 02:09:03 PM
Feel free to address the document details when ready. Are the dates/times accurate or not? If not what should they be.

While your at it, how might Oswald's prints on the Paine garage rods advance the case? Not that I am a detective, perhaps I am missing something?

PS Oswald was a liar.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2019, 02:21:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

IF???.....   Do you doubt that Howlett presented curtain rods to the DPD crime lab ( J.C. Day) on March 15 1964??  And Howlett wanted them checked to see if Lee Oswald's prints were on them??
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Denis Pointing on April 08, 2019, 02:28:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

Hi Collin, with due respect to Tim, I can't accept his 'mistaken date' hypothesis. If you'rd care to follow my link (below) you'll find all the photos/documents that the Dallas Municipal Archives possess concerning the rods. If you 'blow up' the document in question, which is clearer than the one posted by Alan, you'll see the release time is actually 7.50a, not 9.50a. Obviously, the release time can't be 2hrs earlier than the submit time and to suggest two mistakes were made, IMO, just isn't feasible. Amazingly, you will also find a photo/document, which shows the reverse side of rod 275, which is dated 3-25-64, one day after the release date!?! Nothing in this case is easy, is it? lol As I posited in a previous post, I would put forward the possibility that agent Howlet, removed and submitted the garage rods on the 3-15-64 and then replaced them before the garage visit by himself, Jenner and RP. As John Iacoletti, points out, this may well have been technically illegal.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=curtain&t=fulltext&sort=
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Affidavit Of Ruth Hyde Paine

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss: Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964, and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of the Commission on Saturday, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

The "garage adventure" took place on the evening of 3/23/64?

If so the "date error"  theorists claim that the date that Howlett provided Day with the garage rods was actually the next morning, 3/24/94 at 9.45am. Day then processed the rods with particular focus on Oswald's prints and released them back to Howlett at 9.50am. Remarkably fast processing......

Oh, it's even worse than that, Mr Crow. The release date is actually 7.50 a. m.:

(https://i.imgur.com/SjZNKOJ.jpg)

I pointed this fact out to Mr Nickerson many pages back, but of course he never got back to me on it!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 02:47:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error. That is, the curtain rods were submitted to the DPD crime lab by Howlett on Mar 23, not Mar 15.

 :D

So you're backing off from your wild and rather desperate 'missing-documentation' speculation (involving an elaborate sham by Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner for the purpose of... no good reason whatsoever) and are now back to your original wild and rather desperate 'mistaken date' speculation?

Too funny!

But what the heck, let's play the Mistaken Date Game:

What time on 23-March-not-15-March (!) might Agent Howlett have submitted the 2 curtain rods he had just taken from the Paine garage?

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 02:49:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.

Trouble is, the release date and time (24 March, 7.50 a.m.) mean that no other date works either!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 02:53:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, Oswald told Frazier that he went to the Paine residence to obtain curtain rods.  The investigators were simply doing due diligence to check the only curtain rods found at that location to see if there was any link to Oswald.

To see if there was any link to Oswald? Are you kidding, Mr Smith? The Paine home was where Mr Oswald's wife lived and where he had overnighted 11/21-11/22. These rods weren't taken from the Carousel Club! ::)

What conceivable difference would a positive result for Mr Oswald's prints on 2 rods taken from the Paine garage have had? Hm?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on April 08, 2019, 02:57:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Feel free to address the document details when ready. Are the dates/times accurate or not? If not what should they be.

While your at it, how might Oswald's prints on the Paine garage rods advance the case? Not that I am a detective, perhaps I am missing something?

PS Oswald was a teller of non truths.

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the investigators checking for Oswald's prints on the curtain rods.  Oswald told Frazier he went to the Paine residence to obtain - wait for it - curtain rods.  So they check his story by testing the curtain rods found at that location.  If they hadn't done so CTers could claim that maybe Oswald had handled those curtain rods and the investigators didn't do their due diligence in checking out his story.  Oswald was certainly a liar.  But most people don't lie when it goes against their own self interest and the truth would assist them.  If Oswald had curtain rods in his bag, then he not only wouldn't have any cause to lie but every incentive to acknowledge it as it would have assisted him.  He only has cause to lie about the contents of the bag if he doesn't want to be connected to whatever was in it.  Any idea what that might be?  Not all information is contained in a form.  Now how about taking a shot at why the authorities who had succeeded in suppressing any curtain rods found at the TSBD would several months later voluntarily bring them to light, fill out a form confirming their existence, and test them for prints when in a frame up that would go against all common sense and logic?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 03:12:31 PM
Oswald said he carried fruit in a bag. Should the authorities have processed all the fruit in the Paine kitchen for Oswald"s prints? And if they did find an orange with the pinko's pinky print on it, what would that prove?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:14:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, for reasons of clarity, do you mind if I just cut to the very basics of your theory? If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that Jenner, agent Howlett and possibly others unknown, concocted the idea of staging a visit to RP's garage for the purpose of having it on record that 2no curtain rods were retrieved and sent to the police lab. Correct so far? The sole reason for this deception was to enable 2no curtain rods, previously found at the TSBD, to be in effect, 'lost'..yes?

Correct, Mr Pointing!  Thumb1:
 
Quote
Two obvious questions immediately begged to be asked; Why concoct and execute such a very complicated, not to say dangerous 'plot' in the first place? There was obviously no record of rods ever being found at the TSBD, if there was they must have been destroyed, so why not just destroy the TSBD rods as well?

It is a mistake to imagine perfect cover-up conditions. That's not how things work in the real world. If an employee finds 2 curtain rods in the Depository three months after the assassination, said employee may not keep that fact to themselves. Word may get around about the curtain rods. Best course of action for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators is to 'action' and 'resolve' the matter. "Thanks for alerting us to these rods. We've examined them closely and they don't have Oswald's prints. Look, here's a copy of the paperwork for you to look at. In fact, I am at liberty to tell you they didn't even come originally from the Paine home. But thank you anyway. You did the right thing in contacting us." Chances of said worker (and any of his or her co-workers) going to the press or bragging about the discovery? Substantially reduced.  Thumb1:

I believe the 2 curtain rods were destroyed-----------but not until the 2 other (Paine garage) curtain rods had been safely received as a Commission Exhibit, and so could take their place.

Quote
The next question is; Is it really feasible, that after going to such lengths to ''swape' the rods, agent Howell would be stupid enough to 'cock' everything up by submitting the TSBD rods nine days too early!! I'm sorry Alan, but IMO, the very basics of your theory don't make any sense, they just don't add up.

Again, this was a matter of putting out a fire-----a fire started by a Depository employee who discovered 2 curtain rods in the building.

Nearly six months after Agent Howlett submitted the 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting, a 'Curtain rods found at the Depository' rumour was evidently still in the air:

(https://i.imgur.com/mggobCu.jpg)

The plan for the sham 23 March on-the-record visit to the Paine garage would surely have come after the rods were submitted for fingerprinting. Howlett, having noted Day's 'marked 275 & 276' notation, hatched a ruse-----a clever ruse that kept everyone fooled for decades!

Quote
Alan, I'm very glad you brought this document to light, it was certainly something I'd missed, and it certainly needed to be addressed and answered. I'm afraid, at least in my humble opinion, it has been just that, addressed and answered. If you have anything new to substantiate your theory I'd be very happy to read it. Thank you.

Thank you for the kind words, Mr Pointing!  Thumb1:

I must however beg to differ on one point: the document most certainly has not been addressed and answered by anyone claiming that the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March were the same 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage on 23 March.

Why would Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner (to name just the two central players here) go to such elaborate lengths of secrecy and mendacity to get a fingerprint test done on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage? An absurd proposition!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:18:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the investigators checking for Oswald's prints on the curtain rods.  Oswald told Frazier he went to the Paine residence to obtain - wait for it - curtain rods.  So they check his story by testing the curtain rods found at that location.

 :D

How is that checking his story, Mr Smith?

Mr Oswald's prints on the curtain rods: he lied about bringing them to work that morning.
Mr Oswald's prints not on the curtain rods: he lied about bringing them to work that morning.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 03:28:37 PM
These are the curtain rods that were such a topic of conversation between LMR and BWF on the Thursday evening. Yet the next morning LMR sees Oswald put a package in her brother's car, tells Adamcek about the package hours later but nothing to him about curtain rods. Frazier gets in the car and fails to remember the curtain rods also. Has to ask Oswald what is in the package to jog his memory.

Amazingly forgetable for something that was so remarkable to the brother and sister just the evening before.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on April 08, 2019, 03:34:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alan, for reasons of clarity, do you mind if I just cut to the very basics of your theory? If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that Jenner, agent Howlett and possibly others unknown, concocted the idea of staging a visit to RP's garage for the purpose of having it on record that 2no curtain rods were retrieved and sent to the police lab. Correct so far? The sole reason for this deception was to enable 2no curtain rods, previously found at the TSBD, to be in effect, 'lost'..yes?
Two obvious questions immediately begged to be asked; Why concoct and execute such a very complicated, not to say dangerous 'plot' in the first place? There was obviously no record of rods ever being found at the TSBD, if there was they must have been destroyed, so why not just destroy the TSBD rods as well? The next question is; Is it really feasible, that after going to such lengths to ''swape' the rods, agent Howell would be stupid enough to 'cock' everything up by submitting the TSBD rods nine days too early!! I'm sorry Alan, but IMO, the very basics of your theory don't make any sense, they just don't add up.
Alan, I'm very glad you brought this document to light, it was certainly something I'd missed, and it certainly needed to be addressed and answered. I'm afraid, at least in my humble opinion, it has been just that, addressed and answered. If you have anything new to substantiate your theory I'd be very happy to read it. Thank you.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Feel free to address the document details when ready. Are the dates/times accurate or not? If not what should they be.

While your at it, how might Oswald's prints on the Paine garage rods advance the case? Not that I am a detective, perhaps I am missing something?

PS Oswald was a teller of non truths.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Collin, with due respect to Tim, I can't accept his 'mistaken date' hypothesis. If you'rd care to follow my link (below) you'll find all the photos/documents that the Dallas Municipal Archives possess concerning the rods. If you 'blow up' the document in question, which is clearer than the one posted by Alan, you'll see the release time is actually 7.50a, not 9.50a. Obviously, the release time can't be 2hrs earlier than the submit time and to suggest two mistakes were made, IMO, just isn't feasible. Amazingly, you will also find a photo/document, which shows the reverse side of rod 275, which is dated 3-25-64, one day after the release date!?! Nothing in this case is easy, is it? lol As I posited in a previous post, I would put forward the possibility that agent Howlet, removed and submitted the garage rods on the 3-15-64 and then replaced them before the garage visit by himself, Jenner and RP. As John Iacoletti, points out, this may well have been technically illegal.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=curtain&t=fulltext&sort=


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct, Mr Pointing!  Thumb1:
 
It is a mistake to imagine perfect cover-up conditions. That's not how things work in the real world. If an employee finds 2 curtain rods in the Depository three months after the assassination, said employee may not keep that fact to themselves. Word may get around about the curtain rods. Best course of action for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators is to 'action' and 'resolve' the matter. "Thanks for alerting us to these rods. We've examined them closely and they don't have Oswald's prints. Look, here's a copy of the paperwork for you to look at. In fact, I am at liberty to tell you they didn't even come originally from the Paine home. But thank you anyway. You did the right thing in contacting us." Chances of said worker (and any of his or her co-workers) going to the press or bragging about the discovery? Substantially reduced.  Thumb1:

I believe the 2 curtain rods were destroyed-----------but not until the 2 other (Paine garage) curtain rods had been safely received as a Commission Exhibit, and so could take their place.

Again, this was a matter of putting out a fire-----a fire started by a Depository employee who discovered 2 curtain rods in the building.

Nearly six months after Agent Howlett submitted the 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting, a 'Curtain rods found at the Depository' rumour was evidently still in the air:

(https://i.imgur.com/mggobCu.jpg)

The plan for the sham 23 March on-the-record visit to the Paine garage would surely have come after the rods were submitted for fingerprinting. Howlett, having noted Day's 'marked 275 & 276' notation, hatched a ruse-----a clever ruse that kept everyone fooled for decades!

Thank you for the kind words, Mr Pointing!  Thumb1:

I must however beg to differ on one point: the document most certainly has not been addressed and answered by anyone claiming that the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March were the same 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage on 23 March.

Why would Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner (to name just the two central players here) go to such elaborate lengths of secrecy and mendacity to get a fingerprint test done on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage? An absurd proposition!

Great posts! Distilled to its simplest, is the point ?

1.) More evidence the Warren Commission in cooperation with DPD, SS, and FBI conducted a purposely corrupt investigation.

2.) A main, if not the central motivation for conducting a corrupt investigation was to reinforce the foregone conclusion Oswald was a lone assassin.

The public learned the investigation was inept when Oswald was shot down in DPD custody in their HQ basement during a live TV feed set up
in cooperation with DPD to broadcast Oswald's transfer from city to county jail.

An inept investigation resulting in the Warren Report and Oswald's silencing by imposing martyrdom on him have profound influence on researchers and
other students of the Kennedy Assassination, predisposing some to communicate analysis beyond the specific supporting evidence, especially from the POV
of those who believe in a priority to rein themselves in, assuming they endeavor to regard evidence, especially new evidence at face value.

Face value is an obviousness standard of "buy in". IMO, identifying matters with a high probability of being developed into "end of story" fact
yields much more satisfaction motivating further inquiries intended to serve up "the final word" over any particular controversy, is an approach
foreign to posters dwelling on image interpretation or "Oswald was framed" or "multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza". Debate ending presentations
especially in those three example areas are as rare as hen's teeth.

If you accept that researchers and sincere investigators and journalists much closer in time and proximity to the case, many who were much better
connected and savvy than you are, in 2019, attempted and failed to end debate, from the authenticity of the BYP to who, how many, and where all
the shooters are, why make those your focus? There is still plenty to learn. My focus is trying to answer who was Jim Garrison and what was he
actually doing, and at whose behest. I've exhaustively supported why I am asking. The unexpected outcome is a new appreciation of the depth
of the impact of Oliver Stone's film, despite its failure to offer the fact Garrison's alleged battle with CIA was with brothers of his wife's family and
their in-law, accused CIA "paymaster" Stephen Lemann. Sklar, Stone, and Mellen were unaware because neither Garrison or his wife shared their
family ties relevant to the narrative fashioned by Garrison and his autobiography editor Sklar, adopted by Oliver Stone. Upon release of the film,
GQ published an unqualified attack on Garrison and Stone's movie authored by the nephew of Stephen Lemann.

Fact anecdotally at least, is this far into this Assassination controversy, the overwhelming majority knows what it knows, thank you very much,
and does not summon the interest to summon the focus on the question, do my assumptions, my biases continue to serve me well or slow
reevaluation, new thinking, or a second look, starting as close to "from scratch" as self-restraint might permit.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:35:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These are the curtain rods that were such a topic of conversation between LMR and BWF on the Thursday evening. Yet the next morning LMR sees Oswald put a package in her brother's car, tells Adamcek about the package hours later but nothing to him about curtain rods. Frazier gets in the car and fails to remember the curtain rods also. Has to ask Oswald what is in the package to jog his memory.

Amazingly forgetable for something that was so remarkable to the brother and sister just the evening before.

What I do find impressive is the closeness of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's length estimate for the folded-down bag---------27 inches---------to the actual length of the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting-----------27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:37:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great posts! Distilled to its simplest, is the point ?

1.) More evidence the Warren Commission in cooperation with DPD, SS, and FBI conducted a purposely corrupt investigation.

2.) A main, if not the central motivation for conducting a corrupt investigation was to reinforce the foregone conclusion Oswald was a lone assassin.

Good to see you've moved on from Ms Davison's 'nothing-to-see-here' spin on this issue, Mr Scully!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 03:52:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I do find impressive is the closeness of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's length estimate for the folded-down bag---------27 inches---------to the actual length of the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting-----------27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

Could it be that is because that is how long curtain rods happen to be? Paine garage ones or otherwise. I am not doubting your proposed scenario, just whether the 'curtain rod story' existed before LMR visited the Paine's on the 22nd.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could it be that is because that is how long curtain rods happen to be? Paine garage ones or otherwise. I am not doubting your proposed scenario, just whether the 'curtain rod story' existed before LMR visited the Paine's on the 22nd.

Curtain rods come in a variety of lengths. If Mr Frazier and Ms Randle guessed 27 inches, that was an extremely lucky guess! Besides, how did they know Ms Paine had any ~27-inch curtain rods going spare in her home?

The fact of 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' being submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March lends powerful support to their story (and, of course, to Mr Oswald's innocence).
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tom Scully on April 08, 2019, 04:02:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I do find impressive is the closeness of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's length estimate for the folded-down bag---------27 inches---------to the actual length of the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting-----------27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

I'll tell you why I am less impressed about the brother/sister package length assertions than I once was.
They were motivated to agree before their 302s were taken to discuss and synch their stated approximations of the length.

LInnie Frazier Randall estimates package length to FBI on 01 Dec., 1963:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&search=linnie_and+package#relPageId=426&tab=page

Possibly they had a day's advantage to satisfy themselves (a reliable assumption, or not) there was no reporting of other witnesses claiming to have observed any similar paper sack while in transit. Frazier had been subjected to harsh interrogation including psychological manipulation. Police searched their home and
confiscated his rifle, of US manufacture.

Frazier and his sister had no incentive to admit observing Frazier transporting Oswald and a paper sack actually a foot longer to the TSBD and Oswald infamy.
They were country people from Huntsville, Frazier only months before. Is it unreasonable to contemplate they were suddenly deer in the headlights, their 27" assertions a leap away from the headlights's beam and of the path of the course they illuminated?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 07:09:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

The "a" below 9:45 is an error as well. It wasn't the only time that Day marked "a" when he should have marked "p".
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 08, 2019, 07:18:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll tell you why I am less impressed about the brother/sister package length assertions than I once was.
They were motivated to agree before their 302s were taken to discuss and synch their stated approximations of the length.

LInnie Frazier Randall estimates package length to FBI on 01 Dec., 1963:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&search=linnie_and+package#relPageId=426&tab=page

Possibly they had a day's advantage to satisfy themselves (a reliable assumption, or not) there was no reporting of other witnesses claiming to have observed any similar paper sack while in transit. Frazier had been subjected to harsh interrogation including psychological manipulation. Police searched their home and
confiscated his rifle, of US manufacture.

Frazier and his sister had no incentive to admit observing Frazier transporting Oswald and a paper sack actually a foot longer to the TSBD and Oswald infamy.
They were country people from Huntsville, Frazier only months before. Is it unreasonable to contemplate they were suddenly deer in the headlights, their 27" assertions a leap away from the headlights's beam and of the path of the course they illuminated?

Your Ferrell link re bag length has revealed a few details of which I was heretofore unaware. Namely that Buell saw only a 9"X1" section of the bag as viewed from behind while in Oswald's palm/armpit.

I have been looking for information that would confirm that Buell, at any time, saw Oswald with the package fully revealed to Buell in a full-frontal perspective. Additionally, no one has been able to confirm that Oswald's free arm was in full view as he walked ahead of Buell.

I have experimented with a 35" long-heavy object that can be supported by the left hand, and by drawing it across the chest, (while still supported in the palm in the other hand) can, arguably) be carried out of the view of a trailing, distracted trainspotter.

(The Ferrell link informs that Buell estimated Oswald was no closer than 12' feet to him on the walk towards the TSBD that day)

In addition, I'm 6'-6'1" and can only get 22-23" jammed into my armpit and held in my palm. A 5'9" man would have to be a real knuckle-dragger to get a 27-incher to fit.

Finally, do you know how much the curtain rods weighed?

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:24:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The "a" below 9:45 is an error as well. It wasn't the only time that Day marked "a" when he should have marked "p".

Day must also have written '2 curtain rods' when he meant to write '2 Russian pamphlets', which were items 275 and 276 of the well-loved Soviet series 'Bedtime Stories by Comrade Lenin'. It is curious that these pamphlets are not officially inventoried anywhere, but there is obviously some documentation missing.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 07:24:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

With the "March 15 entry being in error" scenario the rods were submitted at 9:45 pm on March 23 and then released at 7:50 the next morning.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 08, 2019, 07:26:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your Ferrell link re bag length has revealed a few details of which I was heretofore unaware. Namely that Buell saw only a 9"X1" section of the bag as viewed from behind, apparently in Oswald's armpit.I have been looking for information that would confirm that Buell, at any time, saw Oswald with the package fully revealed from a full-frontal perspective. Additionally, no one has been able to confirm that Oswald's free arm was in full view as he walked ahead of Buell. I have experimented with a 35" long-heavy object that can be supported by the left hand, and by drawing it across the chest, (while still supported in the palm in the other hand) can, arguably) be carried out of the view of a trailing, distracted trainspotter. (The Ferrell link informs that Buell estimated Oswald was no closer than 12' feet to him on the walk towards the TSBD that day) In addition, I'm 6'-6'1" and can only get 22-23" jammed into my armpit and held in my palm. A 5'9" man would have to be a real knuckle-dragger to get a 27-incher to fit.
Finally, do you know how much the curtain rods weighed?
Well congratulations. You just made an excellent case for a package that actually never existed.
 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:34:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll tell you why I am less impressed about the brother/sister package length assertions than I once was.
They were motivated to agree before their 302s were taken to discuss and synch their stated approximations of the length.

LInnie Frazier Randall estimates package length to FBI on 01 Dec., 1963:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&search=linnie_and+package#relPageId=426&tab=page

Possibly they had a day's advantage to satisfy themselves (a reliable assumption, or not) there was no reporting of other witnesses claiming to have observed any similar paper sack while in transit. Frazier had been subjected to harsh interrogation including psychological manipulation. Police searched their home and
confiscated his rifle, of US manufacture.

Frazier and his sister had no incentive to admit observing Frazier transporting Oswald and a paper sack actually a foot longer to the TSBD and Oswald infamy.
They were country people from Huntsville, Frazier only months before. Is it unreasonable to contemplate they were suddenly deer in the headlights, their 27" assertions a leap away from the headlights's beam and of the path of the course they illuminated?

Up to very recently, I believed that Mr Oswald probably was tricked into bringing a rifle into work that morning, and that Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's size estimate was a get-out-of-jail (-and-electric chair) manoeuvre.

However! The realisation in recent days that 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting for Mr Oswald's prints on 15 March 1964, and that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on an elaborate sham eight days later when 'finding' 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, has greatly strengthened the grounds for believing Mr Frazier and Ms Randle. Their size estimate looks to have been out by less than an inch! Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your Ferrell link re bag length has revealed a few details of which I was heretofore unaware. Namely that Buell saw only a 9"X1" section of the bag as viewed from behind while in Oswald's palm/armpit.

I have been looking for information that would confirm that Buell, at any time, saw Oswald with the package fully revealed to Buell in a full-frontal perspective. Additionally, no one has been able to confirm that Oswald's free arm was in full view as he walked ahead of Buell.

I have experimented with a 35" long-heavy object that can be supported by the left hand, and by drawing it across the chest, (while still supported in the palm in the other hand) can, arguably) be carried out of the view of a trailing, distracted trainspotter.

(The Ferrell link informs that Buell estimated Oswald was no closer than 12' feet to him on the walk towards the TSBD that day)

In addition, I'm 6'-6'1" and can only get 22-23" jammed into my armpit and held in my palm. A 5'9" man would have to be a real knuckle-dragger to get a 27-incher to fit.

Finally, do you know how much the curtain rods weighed?

Nice try!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/lGkrSxn.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:44:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
With the "March 15 entry being in error" scenario the rods were submitted at 9:45 pm on March 23 and then released at 7:50 the next morning.

 :D

It's not just a "March 15 entry being in error" scenario, it's a "March 15 entry being in error; 9.45 am entry being in error; Lieutenant Day being a moron; Agent Howlett not noticing that Lieutenant Day was a moron; Agent Howlett being a moron for thinking a test for Oswald's prints would prove anything remotely pertinent to the case" scenario!

In short----a wild and rather desperate speculation in defence of your beloved "Oswald being a Lone Nut Presidential assassin" scenario!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:48:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When asked why Oswald denied anything to do with curtain rods during his interrogations and interviews, Ford dismisses those who reported the denial as being liars.

Can you kindly quote me to this effect, Mr Nickerson? Thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 08, 2019, 07:51:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald said he carried fruit in a bag. Should the authorities have processed all the fruit in the Paine kitchen for Oswald"s prints? And if they did find an orange with the pinko's pinky print on it, what would that prove?

Tell us what your reaction would be if the curtain rods had never been checked for Oswald's prints.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 07:55:02 PM
Friends, there is obviously some documentation missing from this discussion:

(https://i.imgur.com/0OVPsWG.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 08:04:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us what your reaction would be if the curtain rods had never been checked for Oswald's prints.

No different to our reaction to the fact that the apples in the Paine kitchen were never checked for Oswald's prints
-------------i.e. complete indifference! 

Because we understand the purpose of crime-lab fingerprinting in a criminal case. Don't you, Mr Chapman?  ???
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 08, 2019, 08:15:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nice try!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/lGkrSxn.jpg)

 ??? Yep, that's the size I'm responding to, alright. Try to focus.

Anyway...
Buell estimation, quick glance. No incentive for him or sis to put themselves on the hot seat, as TomS has opined here. And as I have mused, albeit in plainer language, in the recent past.

Not to mention Buell's lament that he didn't want to be known as the guy who drove the prime suspect to work that day.

So you have no info on my asks

Anyone...?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 08:56:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you kindly quote me to this effect, Mr Nickerson? Thank you!  Thumb1:

Sorry, I must have you confused with someone else.  However, since we're on the subject, if Oswald did carry curtain rods with him to work on the morning of November 22, 1963, why did he deny doing so? Oswald lied during his interrogations and interviews, saying that he never carried a long package to work that morning and that he never told Frazier that he brought curtains rods with him. Why would he do that if he had in fact carried curtain rods instead of the rifle? Does that make any sense at all?


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 08:59:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have been looking for information that would confirm that Buell, at any time, saw Oswald with the package fully revealed to Buell in a full-frontal perspective. Additionally, no one has been able to confirm that Oswald's free arm was in full view as he walked ahead of Buell.

Are you forgetting that Frazier saw Oswald getting the package out of the back seat and sticking it under his armpit before Oswald started walking?

Quote
In addition, I'm 6'-6'1" and can only get 22-23" jammed into my armpit and held in my palm. A 5'9" man would have to be a real knuckle-dragger to get a 27-incher to fit.

Good point.  That would suggest that 27" was an over-estimate.  He did say "two feet, give and take a few inches. "
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 09:00:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Day must also have written '2 curtain rods' when he meant to write '2 Russian pamphlets', which were items 275 and 276 of the well-loved Soviet series 'Bedtime Stories by Comrade Lenin'. It is curious that these pamphlets are not officially inventoried anywhere, but there is obviously some documentation missing.

 :D

Right, this whole "it must have been an error because I want to believe something different" will only carry you so far.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 08, 2019, 09:16:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Right, this whole "it must have been an error because I want to believe something different" will only carry you so far.

because I want to believe something different

CT Appeal to Rebellion right there.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 09:26:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Right, this whole "it must have been an error because I want to believe something different" will only carry you so far.

Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya? I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.   Possibly the silliest speculation we've ever seen on any aspect of the case. Unless you can undo him.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 09:36:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya?

IMO Alan's explanation is more reasonable than the WC breaking and entering the Paine home to return curtain rods so that they can make a show of rediscovering them.

Quote
I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.

Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he was asked or what the exact answer was.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2019, 09:42:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
IMO Alan's explanation is more reasonable than the WC breaking and entering the Paine home to return curtain rods so that they can make a show of rediscovering them.

Who has made the bolded explanation?

Quote
Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he was asked or what the exact answer was.

We don't need to know exactly what he said to know that he denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning. At least four people reported hearing his denial.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2019, 10:46:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We don't need to know exactly what he said to know that he denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning. At least four people reported hearing his denial.

That is a misrepresentation of what the interrogation reports say.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 08, 2019, 10:56:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
With the "March 15 entry being in error" scenario the rods were submitted at 9:45 pm on March 23 and then released at 7:50 the next morning.

So in this scenario Howlett contacted Day, who worked on the night of the 23rd, processed the rods and Howlett returned at 7.50 the next morning to retrieve them?

Likely?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 12:17:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya? I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.   Possibly the silliest speculation we've ever seen on any aspect of the case. Unless you can undo him.

 :D

Your resort to absurd hyperbole, Mr Nickerson, tells us how uncomfortable you are with the present discussion--------and with your own wild and rather desperate pleading!  Thumb1:

Now!

As I suspect you already know full well, I have already on multiple occasions in this thread responded to the question, 'Why then did Oswald deny having brought curtain rods to work?'

But I'll lay out my response one more time for you, because you've put me in such a good mood. The response comes in two parts....

Part I!
We don't know for sure that Mr Oswald made this denial. We now know that he told Captain Fritz & Company he "went outside to watch the P. parade". There was some documentation on this missing for five-and-a-half decades, but thankfully it came to light on 19 February 2019
---------i.e. Captain Fritz & Company suppressed Mr Oswald's claim as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting.
Therefore! It is perfectly possible that
a)----------------Mr Oswald confirmed that he had indeed brought curtain rods into the building
b)----------------Captain Fritz, knowing that 2 curtain rods were indeed missing from the Paine garage, and understanding the significance of this, suppressed Mr Oswald's claim.

Part II!
However! If---------if!---------Mr Oswald did indeed lie to Captain Fritz by denying he'd brought curtain rods to work, then there's a simple explanation:
a)--------------Shortly after the assassination, Mr Oswald discovered that the curtain rods were gone from the place he had left them (= 1st fl storage room?); he very quickly put 2 and 2 together (i.e. he had been tricked into bringing a long package to work in order to tie him to a rifle); he left the scene
b)--------------In custody, when asked about the curtain rods, which he knew to be missing and therefore of no material help to his cause, he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long package to work that morning.
A good judgment call on Mr Oswald's part? Perhaps, perhaps not. But------given that the curtain rods were gone anyway, and given the way he was being railroaded------an understandable one from a man who found himself framed for a capital crime!

Now back over to you, Mr Nickerson:

Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 12:28:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So in this scenario Howlett contacted Day, who worked on the night of the 23rd, processed the rods and Howlett returned at 7.50 the next morning to retrieve them?

Likely?

Not just likely-----it's the obvious explanation. Along with Lieutenant Day's getting the date wildly wrong, and notating the time incorrectly for good measure. And Agent Howlett's not noticing. And neither of them stopping to ask the other, 'Hey, remind me again why exactly we're printing these rods found in the Paine garage?' And Lieutenant Day's deciding, just for a lark, to write a different release date on a copy of the same form a couple of days later.

I mean, it's not like these two guys were trained professionals or anything. Only a kook would consider a Crime Scene Search Section form an official record of chain of evidence.  ::)

Now that I think of it, Lieutenant Day drank heavily on the job and was suffering from dementia from October '62 on. Can I prove any of this, no? But what I can prove is that there must obviously be some missing documentation on it somewhere nowhere.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 12:30:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So in this scenario Howlett contacted Day, who worked on the night of the 23rd, processed the rods and Howlett returned at 7.50 the next morning to retrieve them?

Likely?

How about we change the 7.50a to 7.50p? Better?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 12:35:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about we change the 7.50a to 7.50p? Better?

 :D

How about we just change any evidence we don't like? And then cite 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' to fill out the remaining gaps? That's the Nickerson Research Methodology, folks!

Perhaps Mr Nickerson might further oblige us by changing the empty window in the Hughes film through the addition of a crayon sketch of Mr Oswald holding a rifle?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 12:39:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The response comes in two parts....

Part I!
We don't know for sure that Mr Oswald made this denial. We now know that he told Captain Fritz & Company he "went outside to watch the P. parade". There was some documentation on this missing for five-and-a-half decades, but thankfully it came to light on 19 February 2019
---------i.e. Captain Fritz & Company suppressed Mr Oswald's claim as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting.
Therefore! It is perfectly possible that
a)----------------Mr Oswald confirmed that he had indeed brought curtain rods into the building
b)----------------Captain Fritz, knowing that 2 curtain rods were indeed missing from the Paine garage, and understanding the significance of this, suppressed Mr Oswald's claim.

Part I needs to be dealt with before we look at Part II.

He denied that he brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he had ever had any conversation about curtain rods with the boy named Weesley who drove him to his employment. --Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley report on one of the Nov 23 interviews of Oswald that he sat in on.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29105
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. FRITZ. And I asked him about that and he denied having anything to do with any curtain rods. It is possible that I could have asked him that on one of those other times, too, but I know I asked him that question the last morning. -- Capt. Will Fritz
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------

He denied bringing any package to work on the morning of November 22, 1963. He stated that he was not in the process of fixing up his apartment and denied telling Wesley Frazier that the purpose of his visit to Irving , Texas , on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from Mrs. Ruth Paine. -- FBI Agent James Bookhout
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697&relPageId=108
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.
--US Postal Inspector Harry Holmes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fritz was the head of the DPD Homicide Department. Bookhout, Kelley and Holmes were not under his authority or control. Were all four of those people lying when they stated that Oswald denied the curtain rods?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 12:51:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fritz was the head of the DPD Homicide Department. Bookhout, Kelley and Holmes were not under his authority or control. Were all four of those people lying when they stated that Oswald denied the curtain rods?

Quite possibly. We already know that Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley suppressed Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade. Hardly a stretch that they would have lied here too.

It's also---------as I have acknowledged----------perfectly possible that Mr Oswald really did deny having brought a long package containing curtain rods to work that morning. And I have offered a straightforward and logical explanation for that scenario too.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 12:56:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quite possibly. We already know that Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley suppressed Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade. Hardly a stretch that they would have lied here too.

It's also---------as I have acknowledged----------perfectly possible that Mr Oswald really did deny having brought a long package containing curtain rods to work that morning. And I have offered a straightforward and logical explanation for that scenario too.  Thumb1:

You are already on record of calling Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley liars. So, why not just come out and say what you really think on this one? You obviously believe that they lied here. Your alternate explanation  could have been constructed by Walt Cakebread. It's that laughable. Don't insult our intelligence. 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 01:00:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

a)----------------Mr Oswald confirmed that he had indeed brought curtain rods into the building
b)----------------Captain Fritz, knowing that 2 curtain rods were indeed missing from the Paine garage, and understanding the significance of this, suppressed Mr Oswald's claim.

How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 01:01:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are already on record of calling Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley liars. So, why not just come out and say what you really think on this one? You obviously believe that they lied here. Your alternate explanation  could have been constructed by Walt Cakebread. It's that laughable. Don't insult our intelligence.

 :D

You've come up with some truly laughable explanations on this thread, Mr Nickerson, and I and others have been able to annihilate them without breaking a sweat.

Now it's your turn----------show all the folks reading why my explanation of Mr Oswald's alleged lie in custody about the curtain rods is laughable. Give it your best shot, sir!  Thumb1:

And while you're at it, maybe you might get around to answering-----------in a laughable or non-laughable way (your choice!)-------------the question you keep evading:

Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

 :)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 01:05:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage?

Gee, I don't know, Mr Nickerson. It's not as though Mr Frazier had talked a whole bunch about curtain rods the night before. And there's no way that would have prompted FBI and/or DPD to check whether any curtain rods were missing from the Paine home. No! They would have said to themselves, 'Let's not look into the curtain rods right now. March would be a better time to do that. Little danger of fingerprint contamination between now and then.'
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 01:08:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

You've come up with some truly laughable explanations on this thread, Mr Nickerson, and I and others have been able to annihilate them without breaking a sweat.

Now it's your turn----------show all the folks reading why my explanation of Mr Oswald's alleged lie in custody about the curtain rods is laughable. Give it your best shot, sir!  Thumb1:

And while you're at it, maybe you might get around to answering-----------in a laughable or non-laughable way (your choice!)-------------the question you keep evading:

Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?
 :)

Nope. You are avoiding the question at hand. We need to get a straight answer from you on whether Oswald lied or not about the curtain rods. Were Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout and Holmes all lying when reporting that Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning? Yes or no?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 01:17:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gee, I don't know, Mr Nickerson. It's not as though Mr Frazier had talked a whole bunch about curtain rods the night before. And there's no way that would have prompted FBI and/or DPD to check whether any curtain rods were missing from the Paine home. No! They would have said to themselves, 'Let's not look into the curtain rods right now. March would be a better time to do that. Little danger of fingerprint contamination between now and then.'

That doesn't make any sense.  You are struggling. How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage? How was it determined that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage and who made that determination?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2019, 01:22:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quite possibly. We already know that Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley suppressed Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade. Hardly a stretch that they would have lied here too.

It's also---------as I have acknowledged----------perfectly possible that Mr Oswald really did deny having brought a long package containing curtain rods to work that morning. And I have offered a straightforward and logical explanation for that scenario too.  Thumb1:

Alan...Lee DID NOT go outside to watch the Presidential Parade....  He told the interrogators that he was in the 1st floor lunchroom when the P. Parade passed by the TSBD ....   He went outside AFTER meeting Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom....and by that time the parade was over......
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2019, 02:09:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That doesn't make any sense.  You are struggling. How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage? How was it determined that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage and who made that determination?

FBI agent Bookhout filed a report for 11/23/63.... 

What was the most significant piece of evidence on 11/23/63??    .....The Back yard photo...   But Bookhout doesn't even mention the BY photo....But he does write about the curtain rods....And Inspector Kelley also reports that Lee was asked about curtain rods on Saturday 11/23/63....and Lee denied that he had told Frazier that he needed curtain rods for his apartment.   

However NOBODY says anything about curtain rods being missing from the Paine's garage......   I'd guess that the interrogators simply assumed that Marina had curtain rods among their belongings....   and also assumed that curtain rods were not a valuable item that Marina, or Ruth would inventory and be concerned about losing.   IOW..... They probably assumed that there would be no way to determine if any curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage....( and that's a logical assumption.)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 02:20:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
FBI agent Bookhout filed a report for 11/23/63.... 

What was the most significant piece of evidence on 11/23/63??    .....The Back yard photo...   But Bookhout doesn't even mention the BY photo....But he does write about the curtain rods....And Inspector Kelley also reports that Lee was asked about curtain rods on Saturday 11/23/63....and Lee denied that he had told Frazier that he needed curtain rods for his apartment.   

However NOBODY says anything about curtain rods being missing from the Paine's garage......   I'd guess that the interrogators simply assumed that Marina had curtain rods among their belongings....   and also assumed that curtain rods were not a valuable item that Marina, or Ruth would inventory and be concerned about losing.   IOW..... They probably assumed that there would be no way to determine if any curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage....( and that's a logical assumption.)

The FD-302 of Bookhout's that records the curtain rods denial was a report on the morning interview of Oswald that Bookhout attended on Nov 23.  The Back Yard photos had yet to be found. Bookhout attended another interview of Oswald later on that same day and filed a separate FD-302 reporting on it.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=112&tab=page

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 02:30:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nope. You are avoiding the question at hand. We need to get a straight answer from you on whether Oswald lied or not about the curtain rods. Were Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout and Holmes all lying when reporting that Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning? Yes or no?

 :D

I've already answered your question in the clearest terms possible, Mr Nickerson: Mr Oswald may have lied. Now you want me to pretend to have sat in on Mr Oswald's interrogation or to have listened to non-existent (or, as you would say, 'obviously missing') audio recordings of what he said? Good grief!

Why am I getting the impression that all this bluster from you is down to your not wanting to answer my question? Well, you can run but you can't hide. Here it is again!

Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 02:33:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That doesn't make any sense.  You are struggling. How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage? How was it determined that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage and who made that determination?

Gee, I don't know, Mr Nickerson. It's not as if, yannow, asking Ms Paine and going into her garage to, yannow, check would have occurred to anyone...
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 03:38:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I've already answered your question in the clearest terms possible, Mr Nickerson: Mr Oswald may have lied. Now you want me to pretend to have sat in on Mr Oswald's interrogation or to have listened to non-existent (or, as you would say, 'obviously missing') audio recordings of what he said? Good grief!

"May have" is not the clearest terms. You don't have to have sat in on Oswald's interrogation to know whether Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout, and Holmes said what they said or not. All of their statements are a matter of official record. Were Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout and Holmes all lying when reporting that Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning? Yes or no?

Quote
Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

The two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage were sent for testing to see if it could be established if Oswald had ever handled them or not. It's related to the same question as to why they were even interested in the rods at all.


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 03:48:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gee, I don't know, Mr Nickerson. It's not as if, yannow, asking Ms Paine and going into her garage to, yannow, check would have occurred to anyone...

Have you not read her depositions? Apparently not.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 09, 2019, 03:52:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage were sent for testing to see if it could be established if Oswald had ever handled them or not. It's related to the same question as to why they were even interested in the rods at all.

And the importance of determining whether he handled rods in the Paine garage is?

To establish whether he was in the Paine garage some time before 22nd November?

Perhaps he had an accomplice who returned them?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 05:38:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the importance of determining whether he handled rods in the Paine garage is?

To establish whether he was in the Paine garage some time before 22nd November?

Perhaps he had an accomplice who returned them?

Not sure. Just as I'm not sure why they tested the contents of Oswald's wallet for prints as well as other items that were removed from the Paine Residence and from 1026 North Beckley.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 10:02:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage were sent for testing to see if it could be established if Oswald had ever handled them or not.

Thanks for explaining that the purpose of fingerprint testing an object is to try to establish whether somebody has handled it. You've advanced the discussion enormously!  Thumb1:

But what conceivable difference would it make whether or not Mr Oswald had handled 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2019, 10:36:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for explaining that the purpose of fingerprint testing an object is to try to establish whether somebody has handled it. You've advanced the discussion enormously!  Thumb1:

But what conceivable difference would it make whether or not Mr Oswald had handled 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage?

What possible reason would the contents of Oswald's wallet and other personal effects of his be checked for fingerprints?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 09, 2019, 11:33:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What possible reason would the contents of Oswald's wallet and other personal effects of his be checked for fingerprints?

Well they were his at least.....the Paine rods not so. I wonder if they might be looking for possible accomplices' prints? Like on the chicken lunch sack.....oh surely not.....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Richard Smith on April 09, 2019, 02:10:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the importance of determining whether he handled rods in the Paine garage is?


Because Oswald told Frazier he had curtain rods in his bag which he obtained from the Paine residence!  Good grief.  If there was some evidence that Oswald actually handled curtain rods in the Paine garage, it would give some credence to his story.  Isn't that what Alan is alleging happened.  That Oswald took some curtain rods from this package.   Of course the authorities didn't believe that because there was a mountain of evidence that he took his rifle.  But checking the only curtain rods at that location was simply due diligence.  What doesn't add up is a scenario in which the authorities have successfully suppressed the curtain rods in an effort to frame Oswald KNOWING that he took them that morning, but then voluntarily bring them to light five months later to test them for his prints.  LOL.  Entirely contrary to their alleged objective to avoid linking Oswald to any curtain rods.  No one can believe that absurd narrative which is internally contradictory.  Honestly, give it some thought.  It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2019, 02:20:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the authorities didn't believe that because there was a mountain of evidence that he took his rifle. 

LOL
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2019, 06:16:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fritz was the head of the DPD Homicide Department. Bookhout, Kelley and Holmes were not under his authority or control. Were all four of those people lying when they stated that Oswald denied the curtain rods?

Bookhout's interrogation report doesn't say that Oswald denied carrying curtain rods.  Neither does Fritz's.  Neither does Kelley's.  Neither does Holmes'.

Cherry-picking testimony from months later is disingenuous.  Especially when they kept having to be instructed to refer to their reports because their testimony kept contradicting the reports.

As for Bookhout, his report makes two contradictory claims:

"He denied bringing any package to work on the morning of November 22, 1963."

"He stated that his lunch had consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple which he had obtained at Mrs. Ruth Paine's residence in Irving, Texas, upon his leaving for work that morning."

At least one of these statements has to be false.

A clue is contained in Fritz's report:

"He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."

The problem is, we don't know how Fritz characterized "the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister".  That's what Oswald denied carrying.  For all we know, Fritz handed CE142 to Oswald and said "we have somebody who said you carried this to work".

That's why it's important to know exactly what was asked and exactly what the answer was, rather than summaries that were all given from memory after the fact.

Note that denying talking to Frazier about curtain rods is not the same thing as denying having curtain rods.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 07:33:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What possible reason would the contents of Oswald's wallet and other personal effects of his be checked for fingerprints?

Which contents? Which personal effects? Links, please! That way we can compare the cases. Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Have you not read her depositions? Apparently not.

Not a peep about
a)-------------whether or not Ms Paine had been asked whether any curtain rods were missing
b)-------------any curtain rods still in place.

A bizarre omission!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 07:38:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because Oswald told Frazier he had curtain rods in his bag which he obtained from the Paine residence!  Good grief.  If there was some evidence that Oswald actually handled curtain rods in the Paine garage, it would give some credence to his story.

 :D

How would Mr Oswald's fingerprints on a pair of curtain rods still in the Paine home give credence to Mr Oswald's reported story that he had taken curtain rods out of the Paine home?

Good grief.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2019, 07:56:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How would Mr Oswald's fingerprints on a pair of curtain rods still in the Paine home give credence to Mr Oswald's reported story that he had taken curtain rods out of the Paine home?

Good point, Alan.  It's not like finding a Minox spy camera in the garage and needing to determine if it was Oswald's or Michael Paine's.  They already knew that the curtain rods supposedly in the garage undisturbed since the assassination belonged to Ruth.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2019, 09:55:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The FD-302 of Bookhout's that records the curtain rods denial was a report on the morning interview of Oswald that Bookhout attended on Nov 23.  The Back Yard photos had yet to be found. Bookhout attended another interview of Oswald later on that same day and filed a separate FD-302 reporting on it.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=112&tab=page

The FD-302 of Bookhout's that records the curtain rods denial was a report on the morning interview of Oswald that Bookhout attended on Nov 23.  The Back Yard photos had yet to be found.

Hey!.... By Golly..Yer right....The BY photos had not yet been found....   But Captain Fritz was questioning Lee about the BY photo....  Can you explain how that's possible?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 10:22:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good point, Alan.  It's not like finding a Minox spy camera in the garage and needing to determine if it was Oswald's or Michael Paine's.  They already knew that the curtain rods supposedly in the garage undisturbed since the assassination belonged to Ruth.

Exactly, Mr Iacoletti!  Thumb1:

Apropos the Minox, here's what Det. Gus Rose told the HSCA:

(https://i.imgur.com/zYssxcZ.jpg)

One can only imagine the FBI reaction had Ms Paine told them that 2 of the 4 curtain rods in her garage were missing...

Actually, one doesn't have to imagine it. It's screaming from the official record's complete silence about her curtain rods pre-March 15!
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 10:30:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the importance of determining whether he handled rods in the Paine garage is?

To establish whether he was in the Paine garage some time before 22nd November?

Perhaps he had an accomplice who returned them?

My money's on his brother Robert. "Junie needs a new pair of shoes" is obviously code for "Ruthie needs an old pair of rods".

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2019, 12:41:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My money's on his brother Robert. "Junie needs a new pair of shoes" is obviously code for "Ruthie needs an old pair of rods".

"Baby needs a new pair of shoes"...is an old crap shooters saying when shooting craps...  Lee would have known that old call for lady luck....

I've long suspected that Lee's calling attention to Junie needing new shoes was a veiled request for one of his family to check Junies shoes for some valuable piece of evidence...  In fact many years ago I asked Marina if she had kept Junies baby shoes because I believed the baby shoes had "something" important hidden in them....

Marina didn't have a clue what I was suggesting.....Or at least she didn't show any interest, and she said that she had thrown Junies baby shoes away....

Most American mothers from that era....kept their childrens baby shoes to be passed on to grandchildren later in life.....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 10, 2019, 01:23:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which contents? Which personal effects? Links, please! That way we can compare the cases. Thumb1:

Here are a few:

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Contents-of-Oswalds-wallet..jpg

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Oswald?s-military-ID-said-to-have-been-stained-by-FBI-fingerprinting-fluid..jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0255a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0254a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0257b.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0258a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0119a.htm

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question which is not particularly pertinent to this particular witness, but how many prints on various things like these boxes and other paraphernalia that the Commission may now have in its possession have been identified as those of Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. Six all told.
Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?
Mr. LATONA. Six.
Representative BOGGS. That includes these?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Representative BOGGS. How many, three?
Mr. LATONA. Three so far.
Mr. DULLES. (addressing Mr. Eisenberg) You have dealt with three so far?
Mr. EISENBERG. Three so far. We should modify this. We are only introducing this morning evidence associated with the crime, directly with the crime.Now, there were many papers submitted to the identification division. I believe you did identify----
Mr. LATONA. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear. Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 10, 2019, 01:26:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The FD-302 of Bookhout's that records the curtain rods denial was a report on the morning interview of Oswald that Bookhout attended on Nov 23.  The Back Yard photos had yet to be found.

Hey!.... By Golly..Yer right....The BY photos had not yet been found....   But Captain Fritz was questioning Lee about the BY photo....  Can you explain how that's possible?

Mr. FRITZ. There is a lot of questioning in our mind about the time of this middle day questioning here. We checked it over and over and we can't be sure about the time and I don't want to go on record as not knowing whether this time is correct because it might not be.
Mr. BALL. You mean 12:35?
Mr. FRITZ. 12:35.
Mr. BALL. But you do know this conversation----
Mr. FRITZ. I do know we talked to him a number of times all along, and these questions and answers are right, but the times may be off.
Mr. BALL. You did show him this picture, a picture of Oswald with a rifle and pistol?
Mr. FRITZ. I showed him that at one of those interviews, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And he denied that that was a picture of him.
Mr. FRITZ. That is true; yes, sir; that is right.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 10, 2019, 03:46:15 AM
Presuming there was a package containing curtain rods found in the TSBD, and that there was concerted effort not to have this finding disrupt the Hoover directive to find "no conspiracy" and to comply with LBJ's "He's our man" and Will Fritz "This case is cinched", then the skeptical JFK Forum reader is left with 2 primary options:

1. Some curtain rods were found in TSBD, early, during the searching of the TSBD, and someone decided to hide this fact, and kept this package until March 15th, when it became for some reason, a necessity to submit an official document of request for testing for fingerprints, to Lt.Day.


2.Some curtain rods were not found early, during the searching of TSBD, until 3  months approx., past Nov 22/63, and during this 3 month period of time, Ruth Paine was  unaware a set of rods was missing from her garage until requested to examine her garage again some 3 months later.

Note: Mrs Paine could have lied also.


Imo, no.2 option is the more probable for the following reasons:

A. Oswald probably hid the "2ft, give or take a couple of inches" package in the annexed roofed part of the loading dock area, when he entered that morning, given that Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald's hands, when Oswald entered the back door of the TSBD proper. (Note: BW Frazier saw Oswald going thru the annex back door, NOT the actual back door to TSBD connected to that.)

B. There is less probability of finding a hidden 2ft long x 6in diameter package in the larger area and volume of the annex part of the loading dock, than finding a package of curtain curtain rods,  in a small storage room at the very entrance of the TSBD.

C. If the package was found early, then it follows that there should have been a much earlier "coverup" episode trying to return said rods to Mrs Paines garage, well before March 15th 1964. Or there would have been effort to get rid of the package asap, in accordance with not upsetting the Hoover, LBJ, Fritz imperative that Oswald "did it", period, end of discussion, move on.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 10, 2019, 09:22:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here are a few:

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Contents-of-Oswalds-wallet..jpg

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Oswald?s-military-ID-said-to-have-been-stained-by-FBI-fingerprinting-fluid..jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0255a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0254a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0257b.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0258a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0119a.htm

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question which is not particularly pertinent to this particular witness, but how many prints on various things like these boxes and other paraphernalia that the Commission may now have in its possession have been identified as those of Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. Six all told.
Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?
Mr. LATONA. Six.
Representative BOGGS. That includes these?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Representative BOGGS. How many, three?
Mr. LATONA. Three so far.
Mr. DULLES. (addressing Mr. Eisenberg) You have dealt with three so far?
Mr. EISENBERG. Three so far. We should modify this. We are only introducing this morning evidence associated with the crime, directly with the crime.Now, there were many papers submitted to the identification division. I believe you did identify----
Mr. LATONA. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear. Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.


Thank you, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Now!

Let's ask the obvious questions!

1. Why were these items tested for fingerprints (if indeed the dark smudges on each of them are indeed from fingerprint testing)?

2. Were any of them tested for fingerprints 8 days before being found?

The answer to 1 is pretty straightforward: to a) verify that Mr Oswald had handled them (lest he claim that they were planted) and/or b) determine whether they might bear prints belonging to known subversives or possible confederates of Mr (and possibly even Mrs Marina?) Oswald. (This is what Mr Latona means by "... which in themselves bear Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him"-------i.e. no significant fingerprints found!)

The answer to 2 is very straightforward: no!

Now!

Two new questions!

1. Why would 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

2. Were any of these curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage?

The answer to 1 is: still no logical reason known to man!

The answer to 2 is: yes indeed---------both of them!

One final question!

Of the following haul from the on-the-record WC visit to Ms Paine's Irving home on 23 March 1964-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/z61rVvs.jpg)

------------how many were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 10, 2019, 09:30:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Presuming there was a package containing curtain rods found in the TSBD, and that there was concerted effort not to have this finding disrupt the Hoover directive to find "no conspiracy" and to comply with LBJ's "He's our man" and Will Fritz "This case is cinched", then the skeptical JFK Forum reader is left with 2 primary options:

1. Some curtain rods were found in TSBD, early, during the searching of the TSBD, and someone decided to hide this fact, and kept this package until March 15th, when it became for some reason, a necessity to submit an official document of request for testing for fingerprints, to Lt.Day.


2.Some curtain rods were not found early, during the searching of TSBD, until 3  months approx., past Nov 22/63, and during this 3 month period of time, Ruth Paine was  unaware a set of rods was missing from her garage until requested to examine her garage again some 3 months later.

Note: Mrs Paine could have lied also.


Imo, no.2 option is the more probable

I agree! Something happened in March that caused a major problem for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation.  Thumb1:

Quote
for the following reasons:

A. Oswald probably hid the "2ft, give or take a couple of inches" package in the annexed roofed part of the loading dock area, when he entered that morning, given that Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald's hands, when Oswald entered the back door of the TSBD proper. (Note: BW Frazier saw Oswald going thru the annex back door, NOT the actual back door to TSBD connected to that.)

B. There is less probability of finding a hidden 2ft long x 6in diameter package in the larger area and volume of the annex part of the loading dock, than finding a package of curtain curtain rods,  in a small storage room at the very entrance of the TSBD.

C. If the package was found early, then it follows that there should have been a much earlier "coverup" episode trying to return said rods to Mrs Paines garage, well before March 15th 1964. Or there would have been effort to get rid of the package asap, in accordance with not upsetting the Hoover, LBJ, Fritz imperative that Oswald "did it", period, end of discussion, move on.

There is a third scenario:

Mr Oswald did not hide the curtain rods (they were not lethal weapons after all), he just left them somewhere-------and then found them gone right after the assassination. This would have been the moment he clocked how he had been tricked. The curtain rods were hidden by whoever framed him.

Probable side-issue!

Do we know for sure when this photograph was taken?

(https://i.imgur.com/sMdVDC8.png)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2019, 05:51:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. LATONA. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear. Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.

How was it determined which items belong to him?

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2019, 06:11:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Presuming there was a package containing curtain rods found in the TSBD, and that there was concerted effort not to have this finding disrupt the Hoover directive to find "no conspiracy" and to comply with LBJ's "He's our man" and Will Fritz "This case is cinched", then the skeptical JFK Forum reader is left with 2 primary options:

1. Some curtain rods were found in TSBD, early, during the searching of the TSBD, and someone decided to hide this fact, and kept this package until March 15th, when it became for some reason, a necessity to submit an official document of request for testing for fingerprints, to Lt.Day.


2.Some curtain rods were not found early, during the searching of TSBD, until 3  months approx., past Nov 22/63, and during this 3 month period of time, Ruth Paine was  unaware a set of rods was missing from her garage until requested to examine her garage again some 3 months later.

Note: Mrs Paine could have lied also.


Imo, no.2 option is the more probable for the following reasons:

A. Oswald probably hid the "2ft, give or take a couple of inches" package in the annexed roofed part of the loading dock area, when he entered that morning, given that Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald's hands, when Oswald entered the back door of the TSBD proper. (Note: BW Frazier saw Oswald going thru the annex back door, NOT the actual back door to TSBD connected to that.)

B. There is less probability of finding a hidden 2ft long x 6in diameter package in the larger area and volume of the annex part of the loading dock, than finding a package of curtain curtain rods,  in a small storage room at the very entrance of the TSBD.

C. If the package was found early, then it follows that there should have been a much earlier "coverup" episode trying to return said rods to Mrs Paines garage, well before March 15th 1964. Or there would have been effort to get rid of the package asap, in accordance with not upsetting the Hoover, LBJ, Fritz imperative that Oswald "did it", period, end of discussion, move on.

Excellent post, Zeon.....  Logical and reasonable.....

I had hoped that someone would post the photo number 3 that is denoted on the first floor diagram that Mr Iacoletti posted.    I'd like to see if the steps up to the loading dock were constructed in a manner that would have allowed Lee Oswald to slip the paper sack under the steps??? 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2019, 06:50:37 PM
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10896/images/img_10896_8_200.jpg)
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2019, 09:32:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10896/images/img_10896_8_200.jpg)

Thank you Mr I.....  It doesn't appear that Lee Oswald could have slipped the paper sack under the steps .....Buuuut.... It sur looks like the gap between the horizontal boards beneath the dock was wide enough to slip the paper sack with curtain rods in it through the gap..... 

Thus with his sandwich and Oranaple in his jacket pocket he could easily have entered the TSBD without anything in his hand....
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2019, 12:58:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree! Something happened in March that caused a major problem for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation.  Thumb1:

There is a third scenario:

Mr Oswald did not hide the curtain rods (they were not lethal weapons after all), he just left them somewhere-------and then found them gone right after the assassination. This would have been the moment he clocked how he had been tricked. The curtain rods were hidden by whoever framed him.

Probable side-issue!

Do we know for sure when this photograph was taken?

(https://i.imgur.com/sMdVDC8.png)

 Thumb1:

1. Some curtain rods were found in TSBD, early, during the searching of the TSBD, and someone decided to hide this fact, and kept this package until March 15th, when it became for some reason, a necessity to submit an official document of request for testing for fingerprints, to Lt.Day.

I disagree with this idea.....  If there had been curtain rods found in or near the TSBD early in the "investigation"..... They would simply have destroyed them and swept the whole episode under the rug....

I believe it's more reasonable that someone like Frankie What's His Face who found the clipboard, found the curtain rods and they were compelled to go through the motion of checking them for lee's finger prints......   Of course it was a foregone conclusion that the curtain rods would have no connection to Lee Oswald.... 
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2019, 01:15:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you Mr I.....  It doesn't appear that Lee Oswald could have slipped the paper sack under the steps .....Buuuut.... It sur looks like the gap between the horizontal boards beneath the dock was wide enough to slip the paper sack with curtain rods in it through the gap..... 

Thus with his sandwich and Oranaple in his jacket pocket he could easily have entered the TSBD without anything in his hand....

Tell us why he wouldn't have told the police that he had curtain rods, and just claim that someone took them.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 11, 2019, 04:33:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us why he wouldn't have told the police that he had curtain rods, and just claim that someone took them.

Tell us why LMR did not mention the "curtain rods" to Adamcik on the afternoon of the shooting.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2019, 04:42:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us why LMR did not mention the "curtain rods" to Adamcik on the afternoon of the shooting.

Did Oswald tell LMR that he came out to Irvine to get curtain rods?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Colin Crow on April 11, 2019, 05:18:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did Oswald tell LMR that he came out to Irvine to get curtain rods?

No, but she claimed that her brother told her that was the reason on Thursday evening after she saw her brother drop Oswald off at the Paines. Yet the next day she failed to recognise Oswald or remember about the rods and associate it with the package. Neither did Frazier until Oswald reminded him. Remarkably unremarkable it seems given the enquiry from both about the unusual nature of the timing of the visit.
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 11, 2019, 05:38:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did Oswald tell LMR that he came out to Irvine to get curtain rods?

Irvine, California?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 11, 2019, 05:45:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us why he wouldn't have told the police that he had curtain rods, and just claim that someone took them.

Because without without being able to produce these curtain rods, it would be used against him. It?s either
 
He admitted carrying a package into the building ? he?s guilty

Or

He denied carrying a package into the building ? he?s guilty

LN-ers naively assume that cops are on the up and up. The Dallas PD proved they were not when they illegally searched, beat up, and arrested Oswald for murder without any probable cause.

His best bet, guilty or innocent, was to admit nothing and ask for a lawyer.

Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 11, 2019, 07:23:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Now!

Let's ask the obvious questions!

1. Why were these items tested for fingerprints (if indeed the dark smudges on each of them are indeed from fingerprint testing)?

2. Were any of them tested for fingerprints 8 days before being found?

The answer to 1 is pretty straightforward: to a) verify that Mr Oswald had handled them (lest he claim that they were planted) and/or b) determine whether they might bear prints belonging to known subversives or possible confederates of Mr (and possibly even Mrs Marina?) Oswald. (This is what Mr Latona means by "... which in themselves bear Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him"-------i.e. no significant fingerprints found!)

The answer to 2 is very straightforward: no!

Now!

Two new questions!

1. Why would 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

2. Were any of these curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage?

The answer to 1 is: still no logical reason known to man!

The answer to 2 is: yes indeed---------both of them!

One final question!

Of the following haul from the on-the-record WC visit to Ms Paine's Irving home on 23 March 1964-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/z61rVvs.jpg)

------------how many were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting?

 Thumb1:

If the answer to 1 is pretty straightforward then why the need for two options?

The wallet contained items such as a Library card, his Selective Service card, his Certificate of Service in the Armed Forces card, and his Social Security card. Lest he claim that they were planted? I'm trying to understand that one and am not having any success thus far.

You skirted around the question of why other personal possessions of Oswald's were checked for fingerprints.

Here are some of the items that were removed from the Paine Residence and from 1026 North Beckley (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57748&search=q407#relPageId=72&tab=page) and which were examined by the Latent Fingerprint Section , Identification Division, FBI in January of 1964 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772#relPageId=99&tab=page):


- One box "Marcal Kitchen Charm" wax paper

- One box of four bottles and one box of three bottles of"Squibbs" Pentids"400"

- One bar pink "Lux" soap

- One small plastic box containing  three lima bean shaped "Squibbs" tablets and piece of cotton

- One single blade brown pocketknife

- One two-blade pockertknife, plastic handle, with corkscrew

- Plastic box containing tweezers and two pieces of cotton

- Small plastic box, empty

- Mirror in green folding case

- One can "Tidy" deodorant powder

- One "Gillette" adjustable razor with blade

- One tube of "Colgate" dentalcream, partially empty

- One plastic bottle "Mum" mist spray deodorant

- Yellow toothbrush, "Colgate" brand

- Small green plastic hand brush

- Green and brown BB automatic ball-point pen

- Small pair scissors bearing letters "USA"

- Package containing 14 "Gillette" thin blades and one sample "Gillette Super Blue Blade"

- Pair black-rimmed green lens sunglasses

- "Farmers Electric Co-Op, Inc."(advertisement) ball-point pen

- Nail clipper with chain, "Gem" brand

- Nail clipper, "Trim" brand

- White plastic cup

- Partial tube "Foille"

- Small bottle iodine, "Layman's" brand

- Two small brown unlabeled bottles with liquid

- Small bottle of clear liquid bearing labels with Cyrillic printing

- Four unused airmail envelopes

- One unused U.S Post Office Change of Address card

- Four onionskin blank sheets of paper

- One small soft plastic open container

- One "Venus Forum" pencil

- One yellow 'Yellowstone" pencil

- One brown 'E-Z Note" pencil

- One black,small crayon pencil

- Two large paper clips

- One 10 cent box of "Steel City Gem" small #3 paper clips

- One cardboard box with 18 brass-colored thumbtacks

- One brush with hollow tin handle

- Label with "King Oscar Kipper" recipes

- Box, yellow top, black bottom, bearing name "Ektachrome" torn

- One silver=colored men's cuff link

- Alphabetical index guidecards labeled A through Z - unmarked

- Steel index cardbox, "Weis, Monroe, Michigan" brand

- 31 6 x 4 lined index card, blank
==============================================================

Why would those items be tested for fingerprints?


Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 11, 2019, 07:31:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How was it determined which items belong to him?

- One box "Marcal Kitchen Charm" wax paper

- One box of four bottles and one box of three bottles of"Squibbs" Pentids"400"

- One bar pink "Lux" soap

- One small plastic box containing  three lima bean shaped "Squibbs" tablets and piece of cotton

- One single blade brown pocketknife

- One two-blade pockertknife, plastic handle, with corkscrew

- Plastic box containing tweezers and two pieces of cotton

- Small plastic box, empty

- Mirror in green folding case

- One can "Tidy" deodorant powder

- One "Gillette" adjustable razor with blade

- One tube of "Colgate" dentalcream, partially empty

- One plastic bottle "Mum" mist spray deodorant

- Yellow toothbrush, "Colgate" brand

- Small green plastic hand brush

- Green and brown BB automatic ball-point pen

- Small pair scissors bearing letters "USA"

- Package containing 14 "Gillette" thin blades and one sample "Gillette Super Blue Blade"

- Pair black-rimmed green lens sunglasses

- "Farmers Electric Co-Op, Inc."(advertisement) ball-point pen

- Nail clipper with chain, "Gem" brand

- Nail clipper, "Trim" brand

- White plastic cup

- Partial tube "Foille"

- Small bottle iodine, "Layman's" brand

- Two small brown unlabeled bottles with liquid

- Small bottle of clear liquid bearing labels with Cyrillic printing

- Four unused airmail envelopes

- One unused U.S Post Office Change of Address card

- Four onionskin blank sheets of paper

- One small soft plastic open container

- One "Venus Forum" pencil

- One yellow 'Yellowstone" pencil

- One brown 'E-Z Note" pencil

- One black,small crayon pencil

- Two large paper clips

- One 10 cent box of "Steel City Gem" small #3 paper clips

- One cardboard box with 18 brass-colored thumbtacks

- One brush with hollow tin handle

- Label with "King Oscar Kipper" recipes

- Box, yellow top, black bottom, bearing name "Ektachrome" torn

- One silver=colored men's cuff link

- Alphabetical index guidecards labeled A through Z - unmarked

- Steel index cardbox, "Weis, Monroe, Michigan" brand

- 31 6 x 4 lined index card, blank
==============================================================


Setting aside the question of whether those items belonged to Oswald or not, why would they be tested for fingerprints?
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 11, 2019, 09:02:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the answer to 1 is pretty straightforward then why the need for two options?

 :D

Because different items may offer different grounds for testing. Duh!

You still haven't offered a single cogent reason why 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints. But I guess 'Don't know, don't care' was your way of giving a 'straightforward' answer!

Quote
You skirted around the question of why other personal possessions of Oswald's were checked for fingerprints.

 :D

And you must have missed this part of my response!:

"[to] determine whether they might bear prints belonging to known subversives or possible confederates of Mr Oswald"

Imagine---------for example-----------the prints of Mr J Ruby or Officer J. D. Tippit had been found on the automatic ball-point pen!

Now!

I repeat my question with specific reference to the list of items you have given us:

Were any of these items submitted for fingerprint testing 8 days before being found?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963
Post by: Alan Ford on April 11, 2019, 09:05:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
- One box "Marcal Kitchen Charm" wax paper

- One box of four bottles and one box of three bottles of"Squibbs" Pentids"400"

- One bar pink "Lux" soap

- One small plastic box containing  three lima bean shaped "Squibbs" tablets and piece of cotton

- One single blade brown pocketknife