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.
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.
What is this double hearsay of BS.... BS information that has no basis in fact.......
Why?
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?
Yes, I believe that Dougherty made that up. Let me read both Dougherty and Shelley's testimony and I'll get back to you.
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.
???
Great, Mr Navarro, thank you! The best way to discredit one unreliable witness is without doubt to weaponize the testimony of another :D
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 meaning is the same, Mr. Ford. The sack, or bag, relates to the chicken. Now, how about answering the questions asked.
: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?
Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?
The fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.
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?
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 fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.
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.
???
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.
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 (partially) two-toned bag
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.
The evidence says so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD.
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?
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.
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.
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, 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.
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
"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?
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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.
The bag being described by Frazier is not a lunch sack.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
>>> 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!)
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?
I personally think Buell was honest in what he thinks he saw
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'?
Still waiting for Chapman?s evidence that Randle said the bag ?looked long enough to contain a rifle?.
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?
Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?
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.
???
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.
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.
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.
How do any of these points relate to whether CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142.
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
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.
Maybe he told them both of these things!
Thumb1:
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.
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:
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.
Thumb1:
There is a third possibility. Let's see if you can think of it yourself! Thumb1:
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....
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?.
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?
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.
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 [...]
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?
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 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.
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:
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.
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'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.
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:
This is the guy who goes from a vaguely seeing Oswald to being definite that Oswald had nothing in his hands. Very convincing witness ::)
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.
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)
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)
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.
Not sure where you got the measurement of these rods to be 27.5".
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....)
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
For ease of cross-reference!:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z6RE8vG.jpg)
???
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?
Who prepared CE-142?
Where was it prepared?
Who gave it to Mr Oswald?
Very interesting find, Alan! There's some shenanigans going on here...
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s400/PaperBagPackage.jpg)
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.
I thought Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit for his lunch that day?
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:
Maybe he told them both of these things!
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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:
Wow, are you taking strawman lessons from "Richard Smith"?
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.
You could use some lessons in logical thinking from Richard Smith. The guy owns you.
And apparently ignoring what else he said.
When your "evidence" is "read the WR", then you have already lost the debate.
...and your belief that Oswald had a rifle in his bag is not conjecture?
hmmm.......
You're placing your trust on the least precise piece of BWF testimony.
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.
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.
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.
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... ?
Another piece of sophisticated dialectic courtesy of the Lone Nut brains trust! :D
Anyone else?
Goofball
Really? One end in his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand is pretty damn precise.
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
Nah! Brennan, Markham and Bledsoe are all eyewitnesses and provided valuable evidence in their testimony.
Thanks for folding! Thumb1:
Which Warren Worshiper is next?
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.
You wish
You chicken xxxx lunatics claim everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way
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.
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:
And he further folds by injecting a strawman.
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it
1) The SS requested the DPD to fingerprint the curtain rods on 3/15/1964 "Request for prints".
I'm 100% positive that Oswald was the LN in the SN who shot and killed POTUS and wounded JBC and murdered Officer Tippit.
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.
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:
That and $5.00 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.
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.
The Paine garage.
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.
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.
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.
If he's truly guilty? Do you seriously have any doubts that Oswald shot JFK, JBC and Tippit?
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
It doesn't take much to run afoul of the orthodoxy...
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:
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)
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.
Agreed. Who saw him anywhere in the TSBD with a bag of any kind?
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)
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...
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?
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.
Show me where I attacked Oscar. I disagree with other LNers at times.. just as you CTers disagree with other CTers at times.
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)
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.
[...Mr Navarro furiously googling 'Howlett curtain rods bugliosi mcadams'...]
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it does say that.
'I just caught him out of the corner of my eye' -JackD
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:
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.
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.
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...
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
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/rainbow jacket>> rooming house (from memory) zipped up on the way to his destiny
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.
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
Now!Sorry, not understanding your seeming enthusiasm/excitement ....
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?
???
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.
.............
I believe Alan's argument considers this statement.......Colin, there is a reference in and their area of the testimony you quoted
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.
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.
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag...
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?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
(https://i.imgur.com/YtyeQiB.jpg)
I was 100% sure you probably noticed it the first three times I posted it for you! :D
Ruth Paine was obviously not aware that the curtain rods had been removed from the garage by Howlett on the 15th.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
???
: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.
Yes! Thumb1:
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?
He denied it, told Fritz it was his lunch
Tell us why he would need a Buell-estimated 27" bag for a phuckin' sandwich
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!
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..
:DExcuse 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?
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:
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]
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?
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.
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]
[...]
If the bag really contained curtain rods, where did the curtain rods come from and where did they go?
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
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:
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:
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
Paine makes reference to them in her earlier testimony. They are taken from her garage and tested for Oswald's prints.
So he is lying now?
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.
: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! ::)
Are you ok, Mr Chapman? :-[
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?
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:
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.
So you can't identify any conspirators. Got it.
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?
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
You and I have one thing in common, Mr Chapman
---------neither of us knows who shot JFK!
Frustrating, isn't it?
So Oswald's best defense was to lie about carrying a long bag [...]
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.
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:
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.
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."
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?
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:
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.
Captain Fritz testified that there were no curtain rods found in the depository (4H218).
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.
So Mr Chapman can't answer..
>>> You got my answer
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.
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?
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:
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:
...................
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!
Now!
Compare and contrast, if you will...
(https://i.imgur.com/DBKoO26.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aEKJHmJ.jpg)
For ease of cross-reference!:
(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?
???
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:
Sorry, not understanding your seeming enthusiasm/excitement ....
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
[...]
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....
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 ........
:D
I'm happy to let more competent researchers than you be the judge of that, Mr Cakebread!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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? ::)
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.
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
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? ::)
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.
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? ::)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Note how Colin drags out the 'sheep' thing again. Ah, the old Appeal to Rebellion thing again
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:
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....
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.
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.
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
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:
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......
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?
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.
: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).
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).
Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!
: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?
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......
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.
"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.
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.
: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
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.
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.
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
Plan B
What happened to this poor fellow:
(https://i.imgur.com/uBMjdZS.jpg)
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:
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:
[...] 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) ....
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.
Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:That is the address of where?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s400/PaperBagPackage.jpg)
Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag, doesn't mean that he wasn'tRe-read that drivel...or was Jack blind? No... He stated that he saw Oswald enter for work and didn't see him carrying anything.
Their mother, Essie Mae Williams. She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.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?
https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_150_300.png
That is the address of where?
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:At least admit that this is pure conjecture.
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.
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.
Do let us know when you have a rational explanation for this, Mr Smith!
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Tick-tock! :D
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:
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!
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:
I believe that Lee was carrying curtain rods AND his lunch in that flimsy light weight paper sack .....
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?
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.
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!
Some reports say Lee said he had a sandwich and an orange,
What reports?
You figger it out.....
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?
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?
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
;)
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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)
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?
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:
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!
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?
So much bad luck that day! All lending itself to Oswald's guilt.
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:
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 ???
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.
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?
Incorrect! You must obviously posit some missing documentation in order to explain away the dates. Very different thing!
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?
Hmmm....are we talking about two different pairs of curtain rods here? I'm confused. ???
I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Would not missing documentation fill in the gaps?
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?
Don't know. Don't care.
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.
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:
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??
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!!
No, Ms Paine claimed that!
And you are claiming that Agent Howlett knowingly omitted to mention otherwise to the WC. Thumb1:
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".
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.
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.
How did she know that someone hadn't removed them at one point and returned them in time for the deposition? She didn't.
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?
What did they do, Tim? Break into her house to return the curtain rods?
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.
They were given the designations 275 and 276 on 15 March. It's right there in red ink. Why would I think any different?
I haven't said that Howlett lied. Where do you get that from?
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.
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.
: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?
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....
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 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.
I'm not accusing the WC of falsifying evidence.
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.
: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:
:D
You are accusing your beloved WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!
That?s quite possibly the silliest speculation I?ve ever seen on any aspect of the case.
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.
How so?
: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.
: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 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.
: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.
Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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......
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.
That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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=
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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".
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?
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.Well congratulations. You just made an excellent case for a package that actually never existed.
Finally, do you know how much the curtain rods weighed?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Nice try! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/lGkrSxn.jpg)
Can you kindly quote me to this effect, Mr Nickerson? Thank you! Thumb1:
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
How did Fritz know on the morning of Nov 23 that two curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage?
: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?
:)
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.'
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:
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.)
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?
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?
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 would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?
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...
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?
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?
What possible reason would the contents of Oswald's wallet and other personal effects of his be checked for fingerprints?
And the importance of determining whether he handled rods in the Paine garage is?
Of course the authorities didn't believe that because there was a mountain of evidence that he took his rifle.
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?
What possible reason would the contents of Oswald's wallet and other personal effects of his be checked for fingerprints?
Have you not read her depositions? Apparently not.
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.
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?
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
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.
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".
Which contents? Which personal effects? Links, please! That way we can compare the cases. Thumb1:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10896/images/img_10896_8_200.jpg)
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:
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.
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?
Did Oswald tell LMR that he came out to Irvine to get curtain rods?
Tell us why he wouldn't have told the police that he had curtain rods, and just claim that someone took them.
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:
How was it determined which items belong to him?
If the answer to 1 is pretty straightforward then why the need for two options?
You skirted around the question of why other personal possessions of Oswald's were checked for fingerprints.
- 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?
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.
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.
Setting aside the question of whether those items belonged to Oswald or not, why would they be tested for fingerprints?
It's incredibly arrogant to cast such a huge assumption (didn't think you liked 'assumptions') you don't know me, you don't know what I do or do not "assume", you shouldn't 'assume' all LNs naively assume anything.
Exactly. If he brought curtain rods into the building that morning, then he will have established very soon after the assassination that they were missing. 2 + 2 = 4. I'm outta here.
And bear in mind: he knows who set him up----------it was the person who tricked him into bringing curtain rods to work that morning. This (so he thinks) will all come out at trial.
Thumb1:
If it's the "person who tricked him into bringing curtain rods to work that morning..... Then he's the culprit. Because He knew that the script called for him to go to Irving to see his family one last time before embarking on his sojourn ( mission) to Cuba.... He knew the script called for him to carry something that could later be identified as a gun in a paper sack..... Thus he carried the curtain rods and his lunch in the long ( 27 inches) FLIMSY PAPER sack......
He wanted BWF to see the sack but he didn't want all of the employees gathered on the first floor waiting to start work to see that long paper sack......Thus he slipped the paper sack between the boards of the loading dock before entering the TSBD.
It's obvious that others knew what the script for the stage play called for because even before BWF reported that Lee was carrying a long paper sack the police were telling the reporters that they believed that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssssswald (Booooo! Hissss!) had smuggled the gun into the building in a paper sack....
What a yarn. If Oswald was complicit in his own frame up as you suggest, then why didn't he just carry the rifle in his bag? Why this bizarre alternative scenario? Do you really believe the plan in that context would be for Oswald to carry curtain rods in a bag too short to contain the rifle if your fantasy conspirators including Oswald wanted him to be identified as the assassin? And then the authorities find and suppress his curtain rods in an effort to frame him but five months later on their own initiative suddenly bring them to light to check them for his prints! Wow. If you are going to write a fictional account, at least have it make some narrative sense.
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!
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!
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?
HUH??.... WHY ? do you assume that the rifle was available in the garage to be carried anywhere that morning.....
But, in answering that question, you can't set aside the question of whether the items belonged to Oswald or not. Some of the testing from items taken from the Paine home, for instance, may have been done to ascertain whether or not they might not in fact have belonged to one of the Paines.
Because the Dallas office of the FBI was insane?
Conspicuously absent from this list: Backyard photos, Blank Klein?s coupons, Walker house photos...
LOL! Were the Paines ever even fingerprinted? Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask them?
The backyard photos, blank klein's coupons, and Walker house photos were all items that had previously been forwarded to the Bureau for examination.
Wouldn't it have been even easier to just ask Oswald?
If the Paines were never fingerprinted then it's even more of a waste of time and taxpayer money to try to develop prints on toiletries from their home. Gee, Oswald touched this bar of Lux soap -- that's useful info for the murder investigation. Kind of like Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.
Did they find anything of value on those items either?
What is the point of your question? It's a rather stupid one.
LOL! Were the Paines ever even fingerprinted? Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask them? And what would be so important about knowing who those items belonged to?
The backyard photos, blank klein's coupons, and Walker house photos were all items that had previously been forwarded to the Bureau for examination.
Considering that Oswald was dead, I'm leaning toward "No".
Irvine, California?
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.
Had Randle ever seen Oswald before that morning?
Did she look inside the package?
Did Oswald himself tell Linnie he came to get curtains?
Yes.
No.
No. I doubt that Buell did either, for the reasons that Colin has articulated.
Of course you doubt it
She's sure Buell told her
If Oswald was complicit in his own frame up as you suggest, then why didn't he just carry the rifle in his bag?
HUH??.... WHY ? do you assume that the rifle was available in the garage to be carried anywhere that morning..... BUT if it had been, the rifle would have been much more difficult to conceal, than a couple of curtain rods. And even though Lee was playing the role that had been cast for him.....He was smart enough to avoid being seen with a rifle near the Parade route that morning.....
He knew the play called for him to be seen as a Castro supporter who had taken a shot at JFK.... Just as that hoax was used at Walker's house back in April...
Probably. If memory serves.
Of course she was.
... under oath, for sure
Colin and/or* Martin often (probably) use if memory serves, yet crickets from you.
She's sure Buell told her
Now that we have heard from Frazier and his sister, (who were undoubtedly coached before their appearances), do you convict on Oswald's theft of the curtain rods?
an alternative that Owald did not take the curtain rods of his own volition, but was "set up" to take the rods. directly implicates Mrs Paine as an active conspirator.
Its possible of course. She could have called Oswald at the TSBD on Thursday and gave Oswald the idea that Marina wanted to reconcile differences and that Oswald was welcome to some curtain rods in her garage.
1. Mrs Paine cannot know for certain if Oswald will actually take the curtain rods into the TSBD. For all she knows, he might just leave them in the trunk of BW Fraziers car.
2. There is no certainty that Oswald will be seen carrying the package. It was just luck that Linnie May Randle was looking out the window at the time Oswald was carrynig his package, otherwise Oswald might have placed it in BW Fraziers car unsseen. Likewise, he might have been able put the package in the trunk of BW Fraziers car unseen and never took it from the trunk upon arriving at TSBD.
3. Even if Oswald is seen carrying the package into the TSBD, there could be unintended effect if the package IS found early, DOES have Oswalds prints on it, and thus thwarts the set up of Oswald using an MC rifle, presubably brought into the TSBD by conspirator to shoot a few shots at JFK, with a 2nd shooter with a precision rifle if needed to get the kill shot.
4. Marina's bad news might upset Oswald so much that he would simply have walked out on Thursday night without taking anything at all, called a cab and left never to ever go back to TSBD at all, so the whole plan of setting Oswald up as a patsy shooter would fall apart completely.
The problem, is, a hypothetical proposition has been submitted that the reason for the request of the document for curtain rods to be tested for prints on March 15th/64 was because the rods WERE found in TSBD, albeit unexpectedly late, and probably accidentally found by someone. For some reason, it was was too risky to simply destroy the rods, and the conspirators opted that returning the rods to the Paine's garage was the better option?
The point of my question is simple, Mr Nickerson: you believe that the 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage were tested for fingerprinting 8 days before they were found in the Paine garage.
Well, how about you show us which items from the list you gave us came from Irving and which from the Beckley apartment? Then we can chat!
What difference does it make where they were found? What would be the reason for checking those items for fingerprints? Used soap? Toothpaste? Paper clips? A cardboard box full of thumbtacks?
(http://yoursmiles.org/msmile/think/m1714.gif) (http://yoursmiles.org/m-think.php)
The reason for checking items will be related to the provenance of those items. Yes?
So-------------from the long list of items you gave us (after having initially told us you didn't care about the fingerprinting issue :D ) ---------------which of them came from the Paine home and which from Mr Oswald's Beckley apartment? Hm?
Thumb1:
:D
If none of the items you laboriously listed were submitted for fingerprint testing 8 days before they were officially found, then none of them bears comparison with the 2 curtain rods which were submitted for fingerprint testing 8 days before they were officially found. Quite simple, really!
Provenance? What are you talking about? How would the items removed from the Paine residence differ in provenance from those removed from Beckley?
That's what you've been reduced to. You are in a box. Placed there by yourself. You cannot give a reasonable explanation for why the items that I listed were checked for fingerprints. It's basically your own question thrown back in your face. It's unanswerable.
:D
Provenance of items removed from Paine residence: Paine residence!
Provenance of items removed from Beckley: Beckley!
Now how about you quit parrying and answer the question:
Of the items on the long list you went to the trouble of giving us, which came from Irving and which from Beckley?
Thumb1:
The soap (used and unused), toothpaste, the white plastic cup, and the razor blades were found at North Beckley. What would be the reason for checking those items for fingerprints?
Already answered, Mr Nickerson, do try to keep up:
Those would have been tested to see if they bore fingerprints of any party other than Mr Oswald. Such would indicate known associates, potentially of interest to the case.
Standard procedure, no?
What else you got?
LOL...What? Was he sharing his toothbrush as well? ???
If Oswald was complicit in his own frame up as you suggest, then why didn't he just carry the rifle in his bag?
HUH??.... WHY ? do you assume that the rifle was available in the garage to be carried anywhere that morning..... BUT if it had been, the rifle would have been much more difficult to conceal, than a couple of curtain rods. And even though Lee was playing the role that had been cast for him.....He was smart enough to avoid being seen with a rifle near the Parade route that morning.....
He knew the play called for him to be seen as a Castro supporter who had taken a shot at JFK.... Just as that hoax was used at Walker's house back in April...
Why wouldn't the rifle "be available" in a scenario in which Oswald was complicit in his own frame up? Good grief. Why would the rifle be more difficult to conceal in a bag than curtain rods? Why would Oswald be seen with a rifle near the parade route if it was in a bag and he carried it straight into the building hours before the motorcade? That sounds like something Caprio might dream up. But you think in a scenario in which Oswald wanted to be identified as the assassin, that he would carry a bag too short to contain the rifle and put curtain rods in it? You can't honestly believe that kind of nonsense. In your fantasy scenario, Oswald would carry the rifle in his bag. It is an interesting insight into the mind of a CTer, though, that even when they suggest Oswald was complicit they still can't bring themselves to acknowledge that he carried the rifle.
It seems to me that most CTs would readily accept that Oswald brought in the rifle on Friday morning if there was evidence to support such a claim.
Why wouldn't the rifle "be available" in a scenario in which Oswald was complicit in his own frame up? Good grief. Why would the rifle be more difficult to conceal in a bag than curtain rods? Why would Oswald be seen with a rifle near the parade route if it was in a bag and he carried it straight into the building hours before the motorcade? That sounds like something Caprio might dream up. But you think in a scenario in which Oswald wanted to be identified as the assassin, that he would carry a bag too short to contain the rifle and put curtain rods in it? You can't honestly believe that kind of nonsense. In your fantasy scenario, Oswald would carry the rifle in his bag. It is an interesting insight into the mind of a CTer, though, that even when they suggest Oswald was complicit they still can't bring themselves to acknowledge that he carried the rifle.
Quite possibly. Or maybe it wasn't his toothbrush. Either way, someone else's prints would indicate that Mr Oswald had a secret associate in his life.
That is ludicrous. Try again.
Why is it ludicrous, Mr Nickerson? Do explain! Thumb1:
Why the hell would Oswald be sharing his toothbrush?
Why would they be interested in checking someone else's toothbrush for prints?
One can just as easily come up with similar silly reasoning for checking the curtain rods. The curtain rods in the garage were not placed there by the Paines. They were there when they moved in. Maybe someone placed them there years before in preparation for the Big Event. :D
But you think in a scenario in which Oswald wanted to be identified as the assassin, that he would carry a bag too short to contain the rifle and put curtain rods in it?
No I do NOT think that Lee wanted to be identified as THE ASSASSIN..... I believe that Lee wanted to be identified as an ATTEMPTED assassin....
And the stage play script called for him to carry curtain rods in a paper sack but he was not to allow anybody to see the actual contents of the paper sack....
Why would the rifle be more difficult to conceal in a bag than curtain rods? ... Stupid question..... The sack was made of flimsy lightweight paper, and it was only 27 inches long.... Please make a video of someone placing a three foot piece of 2" X 4"...in a 27 inch long lightweight paper sack.....and post the video.
Why would Oswald be seen with a rifle near the parade route if it was in a bag and he carried it straight into the building hours before the motorcade?
Psssst.....There were many TSBD employees on the first floor in and near the Domino room awaiting Truly's job assignments ......If Lee had walked in carrying a huge sack it would have drawn the curiosity of some of those guys, who would have asked "Whatcha got in the bag, Lee?" just as BWF did when he saw the sack on the back seat of his car. Lee didn't want to raise any questions..... And then display curtain rods..... The script called for him to carry a long sack but keep the contents a mystery.
How did your real assassin get the rifle into the building with all these TSBD employees on the lookout for an assassin?
Wow. Just when I thought it was not possible to lower the idiot bar. So Oswald wants to be identified as the ATTEMPTED assassin. That means he has to do the very same things as the ASSASSIN. Like carry a bag long enough to contain the rifle. How hard would that be? In your idiotic fantasy scenario, Oswald is complicit in the conspiracy. he is doing what he is told. But for some reason you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that means he would have the rifle in his bag. Or at least a bag long enough to carry it. Very humorous. Protecting Oswald at all costs while at the same time claiming he was working in the conspiracy.
How did your real assassin get the rifle into the building with all these TSBD employees on the lookout for an assassin?
If-----------e.g.!-----------Mr J Ruby's prints were found on the same toothbrush as Mr Oswald's prints, you don't think that might be indicative of something interesting?
Cart before horse, Mr Nickerson! Until they do the fingerprint test, they can't know for sure whether the toothbrush is someone else's. See? Logical!
No, that would not be comparable.
Wow. Just when I thought it was not possible to lower the idiot bar. So Oswald wants to be identified as the ATTEMPTED assassin. That means he has to do the very same things as the ASSASSIN. Like carry a bag long enough to contain the rifle. How hard would that be? In your idiotic fantasy scenario, Oswald is complicit in the conspiracy. he is doing what he is told. But for some reason you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that means he would have the rifle in his bag. Or at least a bag long enough to carry it. Very humorous. Protecting Oswald at all costs while at the same time claiming he was working in the conspiracy.
How did your real assassin get the rifle into the building with all these TSBD employees on the lookout for an assassin?
Why the hell would Oswald be sharing his toothbrush? You are really reaching with that one. Why would they be interested in checking someone else's toothbrush for prints? One can just as easily come up with similar silly reasoning for checking the curtain rods. The curtain rods in the garage were not placed there by the Paines. They were there when they moved in. Maybe someone placed them there years before in preparation for the Big Event. :D
First off....The toothbrush has to be verified as belonging to Oswald.... If prints were found on the tooth brush that were NOT Lee Oswald's....It just might indicate that the person living there was not in fact Lee Oswald..... Perhaps an impersonator....
If Ruby's prints were found on the two curtain rods might that not be indicative of something interesting? ???
LOL...What? Was he sharing his toothbrush as well? ???
But we know from the Crime Scene Search Section form that all Lieutenant Day cared about was whether or not Mr Oswald's prints were on the curtain rods! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/wOrSlx6.jpg)
With his doppelg?nger* Lee Harold Oswald [AKA Dirty Harold].
;)
*Kind of like the good/bad versions of the FBI agent in David Lynch's Twin Peaks (2017)
Doesn't belong to which Oswald? Harvey, Lee or Harold? :D
(~Shrug~)
You really aren't doing very well here, are you, Mr Nickerson? :(
What else you got?
I've got the same as you. It's a bunch of foolishness. The only difference is that you believe the nonsense that you spout. When I present nonsense here, I know that it's foolishness.
All you've done is throw makey-uppy numbers and nonsensical scenarios at it in a wild and rather desperate bid to explain away its obvious significance.
No I do NOT think that Lee wanted to be identified as THE ASSASSIN..... I believe that Lee wanted to be identified as an ATTEMPTED assassin....
You posited that Oswald and Jack Ruby were sharing the same toothbrush at 1026 North Beckley. I may be good at coming up with nonsensical scenarios but I could never come close to even matching that one. (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/bow_down_before_you-960.gif)
You posited that Oswald and Jack Ruby were sharing the same toothbrush at 1026 North Beckley.(http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/bow_down_before_you-960.gif)
So my question is when was each piece of information written onto this document and what was done from notes or memory?
JohnM
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.
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!?!
https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=curtain&t=fulltext&sort=
Thanks Denis, you've saved me some time and yep this is just yet another crazy theory that doesn't pass any logic test.
JohnM
Nice pickup, did Alan ever explain how this confliction of dates applies to his strict chronological theory?
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhcSK4sQ/curtain-exam-3-25-64.jpg)
JohnM
:D
Ah yes, the dangers of jumping into a discussion without having done one's homework!
Mr Pointing's explanation of the Crime Scene Search Section form was as follows, Mr Mytton:
------------the dates & times on the form are accurate
------------Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner conspired to put on an elaborate (and illegal) hoax whereby they only pretended to find the 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage on 23 March.
As to why Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner would do all this just for the sake of a meaningless fingerprint test, Mr Pointing had no answer to offer.
You happy with Mr Pointing's explanation, Mr Mytton?
Thumb1:
Ah yes, the dangers of jumping into a discussion without having done one's homework!
Mr Pointing's explanation of the Crime Scene Search Section form was as follows, Mr Mytton:
------------the dates & times on the form are accurate
------------Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner conspired to put on an elaborate (and illegal) hoax whereby they only pretended to find the 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage on 23 March.
As to why Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner would do all this just for the sake of a meaningless fingerprint test, Mr Pointing had no answer to offer.
Where is the 'confliction of dates', Mr Mytton?
Thumb1:
I said I never read the thread and simply made some observations, where's the danger in that?
Didn't Denis say and emphasised that it was just another possibility?
I don't find it very plausible that after many months in probably the most focused on building in the country that "curtain rods" were suddenly found,
but if you believe it then good luck to you. And btw if curtain rods were found it would most likely be a prank much like the souvenir shells put out for the gullibles behind the grassy knoll fence, as they say a sucker i born every minute.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vk6NHSKd/for-alan.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8SMdsdL/for-alana.jpg)
JohnM
Where is the confliction of dates?
Huh?
You yourself said that the curtain rods were returned to Howlett on the 24th.
But according to your evidence, Day was testing the curtain rods on the 25th.
Where do you get that conclusion from, Mr Mytton?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NZ9bft5/3-25.jpg)
JohnM
:D
Ah yes, the dangers of jumping into a discussion without having done one's homework!
Mr Pointing's explanation of the Crime Scene Search Section form was as follows, Mr Mytton:
------------the dates & times on the form are accurate
------------Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner conspired to put on an elaborate (and illegal) hoax whereby they only pretended to find the 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage on 23 March.
As to why Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner would do all this just for the sake of a meaningless fingerprint test, Mr Pointing had no answer to offer.
You happy with Mr Pointing's explanation, Mr Mytton?
Thumb1:
Naughty, Tim. It was you who suggested that they may have been sharing toothbrushes, not Alan, so yours is the nonsensical scenario.
Nice pickup, did Alan ever explain how this confliction of dates applies to his strict chronological theory?
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhcSK4sQ/curtain-exam-3-25-64.jpg)
JohnM
That's not true Alan, if you're going to quote me do so accurately! I'll post it AGAIN. As you can see, I offered three possible explanations. Alan, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply made a mistake, rather than deliberately lied but at the very least you should have checked what I actually wrote before misquoting me..that's just damn lazy. I'm not impressed.
"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."
I apologise, Mr Pointing! And am happy to amend my statement:
As to why Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner would do all this just for the sake of a meaningless fingerprint test, Mr Pointing had no cogent answer to offer.
Thumb1:
Whether you believe my explanations are "cogent" or not is only your interpretation and opinion. Frankly, neither are of any interest to me what-so-ever. Let's let others decide. No answer required. You're dismissed.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 07:47:08 AM
Was he sharing his toothbrush as well?
Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 07:58:24 AM
Quite possibly. Or maybe it wasn't his toothbrush. Either way, someone else's prints would indicate that Mr Oswald had a secret associate in his life.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 09:16:16 PM
That is ludicrous. Try again.
Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 09:48:16 PM
Why is it ludicrous, Mr Nickerson? Do explain!
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 10:10:43 PM
Why the hell would Oswald be sharing his toothbrush?
Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 10:23:58 PM
If-----------e.g.!-----------Mr J Ruby's prints were found on the same toothbrush as Mr Oswald's prints, you don't think that might be indicative of something interesting?
You were saying Ray?
(~Shrug~)
Mr Pointing's coherent-or-incoherent hypothesis: "Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way"
Question!
How could a test on 2 curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints possibly be reflective of Mr Jenner's alleged suspicion of Ms Paine?
Same question, put differently!
How exactly would a positive result for Mr Oswald's prints on either or both of the rods be a problem for Ms Paine?
Thumb1:
Where is the 'confliction of dates', Mr Mytton?
Thumb1:
The dates on those cards indicate that the prints were lifted from the curtain rods on March 25. That's one day after the rods were released to Howlett.
In my opinion ...the only plausible explanation for Howlett submitting the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab to be checked for Oswald's finger prints, ; ....Those curtain rods were found in or near the TSBD and suspected of being the curtain rods that Frazier said that Lee told him he had in the flimsy paper sack that rainy morning.
As the rather hapless recent efforts of our LN friends to argue otherwise is demonstrating, Mr Cakebread, that does indeed seem to be the only plausible explanation why 2 curtain rods were sent for checking for Mr Oswald's prints on 15 March! Thumb1:
Mr Nickerson, when were the rods released to Agent Howlett on 24 March originally submitted by Agent Howlett?
Mr Nickerson, when were the rods released to Agent Howlett on 24 March originally submitted by Agent Howlett?
Thumb1:
Is that it, Alan? Is all you have is 1 number on 1 piece of paper?
:D :o :P ;) :-* :-[ :P :) Thumb1: BS: Walk:
Why are you ignoring the Elephant in the room, your theory which requires chronological precision falls flat on its face with the following date confliction?
Am I correct in believing that Day testified before the WC in Washington on April 22nd 1964?
The dates on those cards indicate that the prints were lifted from the curtain rods on March 25. That's one day after the rods were released to Howlett.
Where does it say that was the date that the prints were lifted from the curtain rods?
Day had plenty of experience of dating prints on the exact day he took them.
Day had plenty of experience of dating prints on the exact day he took them.(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NZ9bft5/3-25.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg)
JohnM
CE 637 is the so called "palm print" that was allegedly lifted from the metal gun barrel of the carcano rifle C2766.
[...]
That Smudge was NOT an identifiable print and it DID NOT come from the bottom of the metal barrel!.....
Off-topic! ::)
Off-topic! ::)
Yeah, and probably off his meds too.
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
Day had plenty of experience of dating prints on the exact day he took them.
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
Walt,
If you truly are at war with the big C then I wish you the best. My Uncle is currently in remission. Keep taking the meds and do some research on diet. If I was faced with such a battle , I would remove all sugar from my diet. Also, water fasting can do wonders.
Nope!.... I take the meds as ordered...maybe I'll be one of the few would survive cancer....
For once I agree totally with Tim. Best of luck, Walt, and as Tim says drop the sugar from your diet as much as you can as tumours feed on sugar. You tried Cannabis oil? I can recommend it as a treatment.
Keep your myths to yourself
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer ? typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy ? including cancer cells ? absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.
Yep. The experts said the Titanic was unsinkable, and in the fifties, they said that smoking was good for you.
What 'experts' are you referring to? The real experts would be those who designed and built the ship, and if you read the news of the day 'practically unsinkable' was a term often used. Show us where the Titanic was actually advertised as being 'unsinkable'
" White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ? We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.?
I note you said nothing about smoking causing cancer.
What 'experts' are you referring to? The real experts would be those who designed and built the ship, and if you read the news of the day 'practically unsinkable' was a term often used. Show us where the Titanic was actually advertised as being 'unsinkable'
" White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ? We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.?
Franklin 'announced' that
I asked for actual advertising.
There might be a legal thing involved
He was trying to fill the cabins
He was hardly going to say 'this thing might sink'
Call it 'snakeoilmanship'
Watch the weasel :'(
Show us advertising of the day where the Titanic was claimed to be 'unsinkable'
Why? They were only trying to fill cabins, right?
Keep your myths to yourself
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer ? typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy ? including cancer cells ? absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.
Scroll back and tell us what the original point is.
Ray correctly made the point that "experts" can get it wrong and you, rather desperately, tried to prove him wrong and failed.
Point out where I said experts can't get it wrong
Who said that you said that?
Where did I try to prove Ray wrong?
Already shown. Go back and read the postings
Stay classy, Messrs Weidmann & Chapman...
So! Are both dates on this form wrong? Is this really the best our LN friends can come up with by way of explanation?
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Thumb1:
This is all you've got, 1 document and from which you've produced an entire narrative with a cast of thousands. You guys.
JohnM
This is all you've got, 1 document and from which you've produced an entire narrative with a cast of thousands. You guys.
Isn't that similar to what the WC did?
No, the WC looked at thousands of documents and interviewed hundreds of people, producing 26 volumes of evidence and based their opinion on this mountain of overwhelming evidence.
JohnM
No, the WC looked at thousands of documents and interviewed hundreds of people, producing 26 volumes of evidence and based their opinion on this mountain of overwhelming evidence.
JohnM
No, the WC looked at thousands of documents and interviewed hundreds of people, producing 26 volumes of evidence and based their opinion on this mountain of overwhelming evidence.
This is all you've got, 1 document and from which you've produced an entire narrative with a cast of thousands. You guys.
JohnM
Franklin 'announced' that
I asked for actual advertising.
There might be a legal thing involved
He was trying to fill the cabins
He was hardly going to say 'this thing might sink'
Call it 'snakeoilmanship'
You didn't ask about cancer re cigarettes
Re death sticks & coffin nails, visit my updated post
If Alan's theory is correct, there are TWO , possibly even THREE sets of conspirators, one set whom really WERE trying to set up Oswald as a shooter, one set whom just wanted Oswald to be a "Mule", to carry in some expensive, substance like cocaine or heroin, and the 3rd set, the post event collusion of LBJ, DPD and FBI to simply make Oswald the scapegoat and avoid any further unpleasant investigation that might expose other corruption.
However, BW Fraziers statement is that he saw Oswald go INTO TSBD with the package, so that would suggest going thru either the actual back door, or the back door of the Annex building.
In his 2014 (?) interview with Tom Meros, Frazier said that by the time Oswald was 50 feet in front of him, he could no longer see the package that he initially saw Oswald carrying between his armpit and his cupped hand. So, that doesn't rule out the possibility that Oswald ditched the package somewhere between the parking area and the annex door.
No, it doesn't rule out that possibility, but just how likely is it that he would bring a package only to ditch it somewhere? What would be the purpose?
No, it doesn't rule out that possibility, but just how likely is it that he would bring a package only to ditch it somewhere? What would be the purpose?
Please do not associate me with Chapman
Hater
Why?
Do you want to be associated with me that desperately?
Glad to see you amended your post after my comment.
>>> After? No, before.
Hater, AND egomaniac
Only your psychiatrist can tell you why you're a hater.
You keep telling me I'm stupid and not worth your time, yet here you are.
Add "timestamps" to the ever-growing list of things that Chapman doesn't understand.
Those that propose the erroneous entry of March 15 as the explanation also would have to explain that Howlett as well as Day was incapable of recalling that the rods were submitted only after the more recent visit to the Paine?s garage. He signed off as receiving the rods back after processing. Did he not read what Day had written?
Keep your myths to yourself
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer ? typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy ? including cancer cells ? absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.
All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy.
For once I agree totally with Tim. Best of luck, Walt, and as Tim says drop the sugar from your diet as much as you can as tumours feed on sugar. You tried Cannabis oil? I can recommend it as a treatment.
Yep. The experts said the Titanic was unsinkable, and in the fifties, they said that smoking was good for you.
I must point out here that I was merely stating what I would do if I found myself battling Cancer. It was the opinion of a non-medical professional. Walt should follow the advice of his doctor(s). If they advise Chemotherapy then he should undergo it. I would.
That isn't factual. While the brain does need some glucose, the rest of the body can get by just fine using ketones as an energy source. The brain is also capable of using ketones as an energy source but it does actually need some glucose as well. That need is easily supplied by the liver which can produce glucose from protein and lipids through a process known as gluconeogenesis.
Idea!
Let's start a new thread titled 'Sugar and Cancer' just for Messrs Chapman and Weidmann! Thumb1:
Well now, this is rich!
Over on another forum, Mr S Galbraith has written the following (emphasis added):
"Go to any conspiracy site and look up the discussion of the "curtain rods"
issue/question.
"Nearly every single conspiracy advocate - no matter how extreme or
moderate, no matter how sensible (some can be more reasonable than others)
- will insist he had curtain rods with him. And most will say they found
rods in the Paine garage and therefore, for some reason, that's evidence
he brought them to work. How are rods found back in a garage in Ft. Worth
evidence they were brought to a building in Dallas?
"It's just completely illogical."
Now! What's completely illogical here is Mr Galbraith's behavior. He is a member of this forum. I have invited him----------along with Mr von Pein and others---------to debate the evidence that 2 curtain rods tested for fingerprinting on 15 March cannot possibly have been found in the Paine garage. Given Mr Galbraith's evident interest in the curtain rods issue, he will have seen this invitation. Yet he stays away from a robust discussion, preferring instead to go elsewhere and write this utter strawman mischaracterization of the current state of the debate.
So!
Mr Galbraith, I hereby re-invite you to debate with me----------here on this forum----------the implications of this official Crime Scene Search Section form:
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Let's see just how secure you are in your own 'logical' approach to the evidence! Thumb1:
:D
You keep running away from my question, Mr Mytton:
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
Do you believe both dates on this form are wrong?
Simple yes or no! Thumb1:
Bumped for Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
You still don't get it, do you? Threads dead and your pet theory has died with it. Everyone else has moved on. Like I told you way back, the very basics of yourstorytheory don't add up, just don't make any sense. Going by the lack of interest it would seem both 'sides' agree on this. Why would anyone even bother to attempt to discuss this with you any longer? You've been giving several possible explanations, which you asked for BTW, and you automatically dismiss them with shouts of "preposterous" & "not cogent". Congratulations, you've established quite a reputation for yourself here...a reputation for being someone who's not worth trying to hold an intelligent and polite debate with.
Thumb1:
:D
The issue will be dead when someone can offer a rational counter-explanation for the plain-as-day evidence that 2 curtain rods were submitted for checking for Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were 'found' in the Paine garage, and that the crime lab did not release the first 2 curtain rods until after the WC visit to the Paine garage.
The question of whether curtain rods were ever found in the Depository is one that goes to the very heart of the WC case against Mr Oswald. Warren Gullible protestations to the contrary, the official Crime Scene Search Section form presents a very large problem for those who support the official story.
Now!
So far, Messrs Nickerson, Pointing and Mytton have stepped forward, offered completely nonsensical theories (Both dates are just, yannow, wrong... Jenner suspected Ruth Paine of, well, something or other, and Oswald's prints on the rods in her garage would have indicated, well, something or other... Someone played a hoax by leaving curtain rods in the TSBD, and it's just coincidence that the numbers just happen to be 275 and 276 in each case), and then breezily declared 'Nothing to see here------matter resolved!'.
This is of course typical of the Warren Gullible modus operandi: I will fearlessly follow the evidence wherever it leads, and make sure the place we end up is always safely within the confines of the Warren Report narrative.
We all know that if dates and timestamps on an official form so clearly demolished a conspiracy claim, these gentlemen would (rightly) dismiss CT attempts to throw strained and incoherent theories at the problem as kook reality-denial. They would be sending us to the pertinent setting-the-record-straight page on Mr McAdams' Warren Gullible site.
Mr Pointing must know that his ridiculous explanation doesn't stack up, and that none of the other attempted LN explanations do either. His frustration at this, and his misdirected anger towards me, are certainly palpable. I forgive him, he's human! Thumb1:
But! Some things are even more important than Mr Pointing's feelings... So the challenge remains open:
Can anyone who believes Mr Oswald did not bring curtain rods to work on the morning of 11/22/63 offer a rational counter-explanation for the plain-as-day evidence that
---------------------------2 curtain rods were submitted for checking Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were 'found' in the Paine garage
---------------------------the crime lab did not release the first 2 curtain rods until after the WC visit to the Paine garage?
Thumb1:
.....
Howlett: Look Day, I'm giving you these curtain rods that I just found 3 months later in the TSBD and I want to know if Oswald touched them?
Day: Why not just throw them away?
Howlett: No, I want to exchange these with the ones that I'm going to later find at the Paine residence, because that makes sense, right?
Day: yeah whatever, just give them here and I'll date it earlier than the official search.
Howlett: Ok, do whatever you think best.
JohnM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pitch_(Seinfeld)#Plot
.... George decides he can be a sitcom writer and comes up with the idea of it being "a show about nothing". ...
.....In the meeting, George argues with the executives about his proposed premise ("a show about nothing"; no plot, no stories). It does not go over well with them and when they show displeasure, George refuses to compromise on the idea. Jerry later blasts George for his actions....
Alan, from the start all we have wanted to know is, besides 1 document with handwritten dates what supporting evidence does your theory have?
You know like an employee from the Depository that actually found the curtain rods?
Or another employee that heard about curtain rods being found?
Or an official search that happened just before the 15th?
Or something at least credible?
Howlett: Look Day, I'm giving you these curtain rods that I just found 3 months later in the TSBD and I want to know if Oswald touched them?
Day: Why not just throw them away?
Howlett: No, I want to exchange these with the ones that I'm going to later find at the Paine residence, because that makes sense, right?
Day: yeah whatever, just give them here and I'll date it earlier than the official search.
Howlett: Ok, do whatever you think best.
JohnM
Hi John, the plain truth is, Alan doesn't have any supporting evidence to back up his 'theory'. All he has is an imaginary conversation between Agent Howlett and a fictional TSBD employee who, in Alan's creative mind, 'discovered' curtain rods in the TSBD 3 months after the assassination and alerted the FBI. I'll post it for you (below) in case you missed it. It's certainly very entertaining, very imaginative, J.K.Rowling would have been impressed. But supportive evidence, it certainly isn't. Here, take a look, have a laugh, enjoy;
POSTED BY ALAN FORD. April 08, 2019, 03:14:46 PM
"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."
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)
Alan, from the start all we have wanted to know is, besides 1 document with handwritten dates what supporting evidence does your theory have?
You know like an employee from the Depository that actually found the curtain rods?
Or another employee that heard about curtain rods being found?
Or an official search that happened just before the 15th?
Or something at least credible?
Howlett: Look Day, I'm giving you these curtain rods that I just found 3 months later in the TSBD and I want to know if Oswald touched them?
Day: Why not just throw them away?
Howlett: No, I want to exchange these with the ones that I'm going to later find at the Paine residence, because that makes sense, right?
Day: yeah whatever, just give them here and I'll date it earlier than the official search.
Howlett: Ok, do whatever you think best.
JohnM
Hi John, the plain truth is, Alan doesn't have any supporting evidence to back up his 'theory'.
Thanks Denis, so the plot goes deeper and gets more convoluted at each step. It's no wonder why Alan quickly retreated from this explanation, Wow, just Wow!
JohnM
Do we not also have a document in the official record that has an altered date of release and a signature removed?
Do we?
Don?t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?
Don?t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm (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)
Thanks Colin, it looks like one of Alan's theories needs some major reconstruction. "funny emoticon"
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
JohnM
:D
Mr Mytton against demonstrates the dangers of not reading the thread before jumping in with a clueless contribution...
-----------I pointed out these anomalies between the two forms back on March 6!
Thumb1:
I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation.
Don?t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm (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)
Look at the difference between Day's signature on the photographed copy and the photocopied one.
Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy.
I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation. Knock me over with a feather.
I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2).
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:
(https://i.imgur.com/dkfJqgx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uoqwWOq.jpg?2)
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:
(https://i.imgur.com/dkfJqgx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uoqwWOq.jpg?2)
Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
JohnM
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.
Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
JohnM
So you conclude that both Howlett and Day signed a form on two occasions that had the wrong date of submission of the evidence. Could both of then be so sloppy? Do you think they do not even read the documents they put their signature to in such an important case? It was an eight day mistake.....an error of 800% if signed on the 24th.
in such an important case?
I am wondering why Howlett's signature was removed with the CE. Seems to be much care taken to leave the lines appearing unaltered and other markings.
I posted the below on 6 March, Mr Mytton, but it's good to see you're catching up! Thumb1:
Every case is important and placing some unrealistic expectations on two people you never even met is self indulgent in the extreme, you don't know their priorities or even if they could give a sh!t, the assassination unexpectedly became part of their job and they did the best they could. I'd say being an intelligent man and with the evidence that Day personally examined and the case that we know, that months later Day knew beyond all doubt that Oswald was a double murderer and what you conspiracy fanatics find so compelling 50+ years later was simply Day hurrying through a stack of extra work where sometimes minor insignificant mistakes are made. BFD!
JohnM
I do apologise. I was under the mistaken impression that documentation is supposed to be contemporaneous for a reason. How stupid and obviously self indulgent of me. I will remember your advice next time I am asked to sign something.....no need to read the document.....just sign away.
I do apologise.
So you had that information and you still came to your fantastic conclusion? OMG!
JohnM
:D
Mr Mytton seems not to understand what an official Crime Scene Search Section evidence sign-in and sign-out form is---------he seems to be confusing it with a personal diary!
Apology for your lazy mistake accepted, Mr Mytton!
That's actually a neat analogy but arse up, my personal diary is always accurate because I'm writing about something that's important to me, whereas just another document that is thrust in my face at work will likely just get signed off.
Sorry Alan, but after Denis exposed the ridiculous assumptions that you pass off as fact, I have no reason to read your posts, whereas when Colin posted the document he at least comes with some credibility and I took notice.
JohnM
On your example I can see for some reason the photocopy has Burkley's signature removed. It does not appear to be lost from the photocopy process but a deliberate removal. Why would anyone do that? Without doing an overlay I can't see any other obvious alterations. Thanks for providing another example though. Do you not agree that the documents shown are "alterations" of originals?
Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
JohnM
:D
Keep wriggling, Mr Mytton-----everyone's watching!
Thumb1:
So you conclude that both Howlett and Day signed a form on two occasions that had the wrong date of submission of the evidence. Could both of then be so sloppy? Do you think they do not even read the documents they put their signature to in such an important case? It was an eight day mistake.....an error of 800% if signed on the 24th.
Sorry Alan but I don't have a "theory" that's in desperate need of supporting evidence.
I see a date that was written in error because as I contend each section was written at different times and the document that Colin posted 100% reinforces my original hypothesis that dates were written at different times. Case closed. Try again.
JohnM
I see a date that was written in error because as I contend each section was written at different times and the document that Colin posted 100% reinforces my original hypothesis that dates were written at different times. Case closed. Try again.
JohnM
Yeah, I think you solved this one. It would have been nice though if Day had taken the time to correct the March 15 date when he marked in March 26 on the copy. Oh well.
I consider whoever marked in the dates to be sloppy. I've signed numerous documents without noting the dates on them , unless I was the one writing the dates on them.
:D
Are you a law enforcement official, Mr Nickerson, with special responsibility for investigating the death of your President?
Thanks Tim, also a piece of supporting evidence is the following dated form where Day examined the curtain rods on the 25th which is the perfectly applicable date for curtain rods received on the 24th.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZtZh6gn/curtain-exam-3-25-64.jpg)
JohnM
No, I'm not. But I do regularly sign off on deliveries worth more than $30,000. The two curtain rods that Howlett removed from the Paine garage on Mar 23 were worthless.
Agree that the Paine rods were essentially worthless as evidence. Question is why make a such fuss over them at that stage.
Wasn't there a number of items recovered from the Paine residence, maybe they were just trying to establish that Oswald was ever at the Paine residence, what proof is there that Oswald was actually in the Paine house?
Did Frazier see Oswald go into the house?
Wasn't Ruth connected to the CIA?
Wasn't Marina connected to the KGB?
Wasn't Ruth's kids 7th level Masons?
And as for Michael Paine he was guilty up to his eyeballs.
So my conclusion is that nobody can be trusted and they wanted proof that Oswald stayed at the Paine residence!
JohnM
I consider whoever marked in the dates to be sloppy. I've signed numerous documents without noting the dates on them , unless I was the one writing the dates on them.
Sorry Alan but I don't have a "theory" that's in desperate need of supporting evidence.
I see a date that was written in error because as I contend each section was written at different times and the document that Colin posted 100% reinforces my original hypothesis that dates were written at different times. Case closed. Try again.
JohnM
No, I'm not. But I do regularly sign off on deliveries worth more than $30,000.
Oswald's fingerprints on tThe two curtain rods that Howlett removed from the Paine garage on Mar 23werewould have been worthless as evidence.
Wasn't there a number of items recovered from the Paine residence
, maybe they were just trying to establish that Oswald was ever at the Paine residence, what proof is there that Oswald was actually in the Paine house?
Did Frazier see Oswald go into the house?
Wasn't Ruth connected to the CIA?
Wasn't Marina connected to the KGB?
Wasn't Ruth's kids 7th level Masons?
And as for Michael Paine he was guilty up to his eyeballs.
So my conclusion is that nobody can be trusted and they wanted proof that Oswald stayed at the Paine residence!
JohnM
At least brave enough to jump on.......better than some.
(https://i.ibb.co/jWzjNxf/3-E3-B5164-8772-408-A-8-C91-CFA499-F70-ACE.jpg)
I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation. Knock me over with a feather.
I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2).
Alan, did you see the above scenario? I am reminded of Tony Fratini's work on CE142 being constructed by Studebaker originally as a transportation cover for the rifle. Was another bag discovered in mid-March? In the Paine curtain rod paperwork we have combined efforts of the DPD and SS, no FBI. The latter mysteriously finding an Oswald print on 23 November.
Not sure I quite follow you, Mr Crow:
"I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2)."
Even if Mr Oswald's prints showed up on 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, how would that tie a bag discovered in the Depository to curtain rods? And how would a random empty bag discovered in the Depository even have come to the authorities' attention?
Just wondering why they bothered with the tape and paper samples at that time also. Was an alternate bag found, one that might have been originally constructed to house the Paine curtain rods.
Mr Crow, I think the entire on-the-record WC visit to the Paine garage was a complete sham, of no evidentiary value whatsoever. Its sole purpose was to make safe the curtain rods issue.
The items they took away were nonsense items whose sole purpose was to lend cover for Mr Jenner's contrived numbering of the two curtain rods as 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276'.
(https://i.imgur.com/z61rVvs.jpg)
If any of these items had been considered important as evidence, they would have been removed by DPD, FBI, SS back in November.
Item #6----"Ruth Paine Ex 275-276 Curtain Rods found on a shelf in the garage of Ruth Paine."
May I suggest that this entry is simply a bold lie and the entire list was composed for the sole purpose of establishing that the curtain rods 275 - 276 were found in the Paine Garage and not at the TSBD....
You may, Mr Cakebread, and you'd be right! Thumb1:
The dates on the Crime Scene Search Section form(s) support this.
Mr Jenner's 'random' choice of 270 to start his Exhibit marking at supports it.
The fact that the 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.
The utter inconsequentiality of the other items on this list supports it.
The utter pointlessness of the WC's on-the-record visit to the Paine home supports it.
The fact that none of these other items were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.
It's very simple:
2 curtain rods were found in the Depository; they were 'absorbed' into the 2 curtain rods still left in the Paine garage!
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.
The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing on the documents....
I am wondering why we see two different versions of the same pieces of information. The time of release, 7.50, and Day's signature on the same line. Why the need to redo them?
I don't think anything was altered but Day signed the original and at a different time signed Howlett's incomplete copy, which became the WC exhibit.
JohnM
~Sigh!~
They are exactly the same, Mr Cakebread, apart from the bits boxed in red below...
(https://i.imgur.com/XsrYD0A.jpg)
No Alan they are not the same....I compared them before the flashing back and forth on the same document tricked folks into believing they are only one document...
The difference is easily seen in JC DAY signature.... Obviously it is Day's signature but his signature is different on the two documents.
The release signature is different. The receiving one is identical.
Colin can you post both documents so we can compare them....
Looking at the overlay, I also suspect that the "Day" at the bottom is different. The one under "Oswald".
So if I understand your idea, the original, was copied, but at a time it was incomplete, some time before the 24th. It simply had the submittion information (the stuff in red) and Howlett's initial signature. The original was then completed properly on the day they were handed back, with the 24th added, time and Howlett?s second signature along with Day's.
Then Day, when asked to provide the documentation concerning the Paine rods, could not find the original, and decided to add what he could. His signature, the correct time, and a date that he guessed incorrectly, the 26th. This was submitted as the WC exhibit.
Later the original was found.
That?s plausible. It wouldn?t be the first time he forged an earlier date on something.
(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/5951f34ffb.jpg)
That?s plausible. It wouldn?t be the first time he forged an earlier date on something.
(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/5951f34ffb.jpg)
11-22-63 .....That was the date that he discovered the smudge on the woden fore grip, while dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD....He made the lift shown as Tom Alyea watched him lift it. Later that night the lift was released to the FBI ( VED ) Vince Drain signed that he received it and Captain Doughty signed fro the DPD...
Why is this so difficult for you to accept John?.....
Didn't the FBI confirm that Day's palmprint of Oswald shared a number of random identical rifle marks and scratches, meaning that at some stage Oswald handled the rifle?
I know that?s the story you fabricated, but that doesn?t make it true. Drain didn?t know anything about it.
I just see a smudge with some lines drawn on it. How about you?
11-22-63 .....That was the date that he discovered the smudge on the woden fore grip, while dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD....He made the lift shown as Tom Alyea watched him lift it. Later that night the lift was released to the FBI ( VED ) Vince Drain signed that he received it and Captain Doughty signed fro the DPD...
Why is this so difficult for you to accept John?.....
I see a multigenerational image that probably originated from a photocopy.
Here's the Palmprint that Day lifted from Oswald's rifle and as can be seen, there is always a better copy.
Great! Where are the ?irregularities? from the rifle barrel?
So if I understand your idea, the original, was copied, but at a time it was incomplete, some time before the 24th. It simply had the submittion information (the stuff in red) and Howlett's initial signature. The original was then completed properly on the day they were handed back, with the 24th added, time and Howlett?s second signature along with Day's.
Then Day, when asked to provide the documentation concerning the Paine rods, could not find the original, and decided to add what he could. His signature, the correct time, and a date that he guessed incorrectly, the 26th. This was submitted as the WC exhibit.
Later the original was found.
Looking at the overlay, I also suspect that the "Day" at the bottom is different. The one under "Oswald".
It's the same---just cropped at the bottom! Thumb1:
I mean the downstroke on the "d" of Oswald runs into the "a" Day in different places? That is not a crop at the bottom of the downstroke of the "y".
I mean the downstroke on the "d" of Oswald runs into the "a" Day in different places? That is not a crop at the bottom of the downstroke of the "y".
Yeah, when I was trying to line up the two images I noticed the bottom Day signature seems to be slightly off.
Yeah, when I was trying to line up the two images I noticed the bottom Day signature seems to be slightly off.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
JohnM
As my example shows the copy of CE2637 we have is not of sufficient quality to see the required details but the original shows what appears to be a good copy of a human print.
I see no reason to doubt the findings knowing that an original most probably exists, the rifle still exists and we now have a high def copy of Days original day 1 Oswald palm print for comparison. I believe it's a little naive to suggest that The FBI would leave themselves open to such easily discovered deception.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hZ8m5Fz/palm-print-a.gif)
JohnM
Notice the two parallel lines at the right side of the lift?.... Those lines are the edges of the bayonet slot that is cut into the WOODEN foregrip of the model 91/38 Mannlicher Caracano. That bayonet slot is solid proof that this lift was taken from the WOODEN fore grip of the carcano...It was NOT lifted from the 5/8" diameter metal barrel as Lt. Day claimed .....
Either there was some SEVERE distortion caused by 1963 copy machines, or there was some SEVERE altered copies being made leaving absent a signature from the original, changing last date from 24 on the original to 26 of March on the copy, and the other mismatches in pen stroke length, and spacing between.
And on top of that, the date of Mar 15th for the request of rods to be tested that have not yet been removed from Mrs Paine garage until March 23rd.
Why did they even bother making such an fd up document anyway?
Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. When he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz.
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
the alleged "lift" of a palm print on the barrel, WAS NOT filmed by Tom Alyea, since the rifle was NOT disassembled in that film segment of Tom Alyea recording Lt.Day doing some dusting of a FULLY ASSEMBLED rifle.
Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. when he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz.
Thank you for posting Alyea's statement Zeon..... But why do you deny that Alyea filmed Day lifting prints with scotch tape and placing the lifts on "little white cards" ?
the alleged "lift" of a palm print on the barrel, WAS NOT filmed by Tom Alyea, since the rifle was NOT disassembled in that film segment of Tom Alyea recording Lt.Day doing some dusting of a FULLY ASSEMBLED rifle.
Zeon, the lift of the smudge that the mendacious Day said was taken from the metal barrel...Was actually one of the lifts that Day took from the WOODEN parts of the carcano as Alyea watched. The CE exhibit ( CE 637) itself is PROOF that the lift was taken off the Wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 Manlicher Carcano.
The two parallel lines are the edges of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden fore grip of the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano to allow the blade to be folded back and out of the way when it wasn't being used.
You simply must refrain from believing the mendacious authorities.....
As my example shows the copy of CE2637 we have is not of sufficient quality to see the required details but the original shows what appears to be a good copy of a human print.
I see no reason to doubt the findings knowing that an original most probably exists, the rifle still exists and we now have a high def copy of Days original day 1 Oswald palm print for comparison. I believe it's a little naive to suggest that The FBI would leave themselves open to such easily discovered deception.
I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.
?Day?s original day 1 Oswald palm print?. LOL
The FBI analyzed what they were sent. No more, no less.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVfZfNv5/dayhowlet1.gif)
Is there any technical explanation for the fact that as we flick from original to CE1952
----------------'Day' stays in exactly the same place
----------------'Oswald' moves noticeably to the right?
Wrinkling or stretching of paper during the copying process?
Hard to see how that would work, however!
Here's the reverse side of the original:
(https://i.imgur.com/Girn28V.jpg)
No anomaly there when the original was being photographed--------------so it would have to have happened at copying stage...
But how? ???
I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.
According to he FBI lab ....There was no identifiable print in that index card....The FBI examined it on Saturday 11/23/63 and reported the print was nothing but a smudge and useless for identification purposes.
No, the FBI didn?t get that index card until November 29th.
No, the FBI didn?t get that index card until November 29th.Yes John, I know the official tale.....The evidence speaks louder ....
The "Day" in each case looks identical.....just moved slightly.....my guess is it result of carbon copy and the copy paper underneath moved slightly when that word was written.
My suggestion of the chronology would be this.
The original CSS was a form that had a carbon copy underneath. The original was written on by Day using red pen on the day they were submitted on two occasions. Day completed everything in red in the top portion. Howlett signed off at this time in blue, the top signature. Then the rods were fingerprinted and the results placed on the form again in red, maybe indicating a quick turnaround. The "Day" at the bottom was written as an afterthought and at a time when the carbon copy had moved slightly underneath.
For some reason the original was detached from the carbon copy after the results were entered but prior to release.
The blue pen was used to enter the release date information at a later time. Howlett signing at that time and Day entering the information. So the original had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line but the carbon had nothing on those lines. This was later filled in by Day with the correct time of release but the incorrect date. It was this carbon copy that was used as the WC exhibit.
Was the clipboard, discovered by (and manufactured by) Frankie Kaiser on the sixth floor about a week after the assassination, ever fingerprinted to determine handling by the misappropriating, commie, recently deceased accused assassin?
Great Scott, Holmes, I think you have it! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Another brilliantly cogent suggestion, Mr Crow, though I'm not all the way convinced this accounts for the 3-26-64 'error'...
If you are right, then perhaps the WC later asked for the copy, which was when Lieutenant Day found it was incomplete and filled it out from memory. Odd though that he gets the date wrong but the time exactly right? Odd also that he doesn't just pull out the original (which, as you point out, "had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line") and copy the information?
The '3-25-64' notation on the card for photographs of fingerprints found on curtain rods (which is, of course, not the same as photographs of curtain rods themselves!) might also be worth thinking about in this context.
Thumb1:
Of course Alan, my scenario does not account for the original date of March 15. Then again this particular date has significance for assassinations.
I don't really understand why it's so important to Walt that the idex card went to Washington on 11/23/63 when all the evidence shows it didn't get there until the 29th.
I just don't understand his narrative...
Of course Alan, my scenario does not account for the original date of March 15. Then again this particular date has significance for assassinations.
Yes John, I know the official tale.....The evidence speaks louder ....
Your undated evidence list tells no tale.
Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. when he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz.
Thank you for posting Alyea's statement Zeon..... But why do you deny that Alyea filmed Day lifting prints with scotch tape and placing the lifts on "little white cards" ?
the alleged "lift" of a palm print on the barrel, WAS NOT filmed by Tom Alyea, since the rifle was NOT disassembled in that film segment of Tom Alyea recording Lt.Day doing some dusting of a FULLY ASSEMBLED rifle.
Zeon, the lift of the smudge that the mendacious Day said was taken from the metal barrel...Was actually one of the lifts that Day took from the WOODEN parts of the carcano as Alyea watched. The CE exhibit ( CE 637) itself is PROOF that the lift was taken off the Wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 Manlicher Carcano.
The two parallel lines are the edges of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden fore grip of the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano to allow the blade to be folded back and out of the way when it wasn't being used.
You simply must refrain from believing the mendacious authorities.....
If you can't see that the evidence list was created on 11/22/63,
Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.
Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.
Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, ?
I'm clearly stating ( not suggesting) that CE 637 is conclusive and definite proof that the UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge that is now called "Oswald's Palm Print" was lifted from the wooden fore grip of a carcano. That statement is strongly supported by the FACT that the bayonet slot ( the two parallel lines) is visible on the lifted smudge that Day stuck to a 3 X 5 white index card and then identified where that lift had been taken from..." Off underside of barrell near end of fore grip c2766 ...JC Day 11/22/63.
I'm also clearly stating that the 3 X 5 index card with the cellophane tape with the smudge on it was released to FBI agent Vincent Drain ( VED) by Captain George Dogherty ( GMD) at midnight 11 /22/63.... And there is an evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11/ 22/ 63.... That 3 X 5 index card is listed ( item #14 ) on that evidence list.
later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel,
THERE WAS NO DAMNED LIFT TAKEN OFF THE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER METAL BARREL!.......THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS!..... IT'S A LIE CREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.
So Lt.Day lifted an UNIDENTIFIABLE? smudge print from the WOODEN stock, which later would become CE 637. a palm print from Oswald found on the BARREL, because Lt.Day changed his story to that in his WC testimony?
Lt.Days WC testimony excerpt pertaining to the MC rifle:
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
Now, i am not saying Lt.Day was incapable of "embellishment" after the fact, and change his original finding of an undentifable smudge print on the wooden stock which was the original CE 637 to an altered version CE 637 and LT. Day WC testimony of lifting the print from the barrel.
The question is why? Could the tape be reused? or some other tape be submitted later, after they took the rifle to the morgue 7 days later, and placed barrel in Oswalds dead hand, so as to get a palm print?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
This statement by J.C.Day is a bold faced lie......The two parallel lines indicate that the lift was taken from the wooden fore grip. And not only that...The small diameter metal barrel ( 5/8") was too small to accept an adult man's palm print.
And the wood grain is also visible on some copies of CE 637.....
And what's more...IF Day had found a print on the metal barrel while in the DPD crime lab, he would not have needed to lift it...
The reason for lifting a print is to keep it from being damaged......Well, in the lab there was no possibility of the print being damage ( if there had been a print) And the wooden fore grip covers that part of the barrel which would have protected any print far better than lifting the print.....and what's more the FBI technician in Washington said that he could detect NOTHING that indicated that portion of the rifle had ever been examined with finger print powder.
Colin the signature of Day is NOT identical....Nor is the time release the same..... and there are other differences.......
DVP's comments re the curtain rods....... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html)
"I've never denied that some curtain rods were found in Ruth Paine's garage. Why would I deny that FACT? It's a fact.
But by laughing and ridiculing Commission Exhibit No. 2640, you are implying that some rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. And that's just not so.
You wouldn't be gilding the lily just a touch, would you now, Ben?
As for fingerprinting Paine's rods --- big deal. If that is, indeed, true (and I've never been interested enough to verify whether it is true or not, but maybe it is), the authorities no doubt wanted to see if Oswald's prints might show up on those curtain rods (seeing as how the rods WERE in Ruth Paine's garage, and Lee Oswald did spend his last night of freedom in Ruth's house and had access to those rods the same day that he told fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier the "curtain rod" story).
So it makes perfect sense to me for the police (or the FBI) to want to fingerprint those rods. If they hadn't done so, I can hear the conspiracy theorists balking about how lax the authorities were. (The cops can't win for losing, can they, Ben?)
Maybe you'd better move on to your next paper-thin argument to try and make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Ben. Because this "curtain rod" thing is getting embarrassing for you.
David Von Pein
August 29-30, 2015"
A most perceptive explanation for fingerprinting........to avoid future criticism of "conspiracy theorists". No mention of the date problem with respect to the timing of the removal of them in the Paine garage on an evening eight days later and their release after processing by 7.50am the following morning.
Didn't the FBI confirm that Day's palmprint of Oswald shared a number of random identical rifle marks and scratches, meaning that at some stage Oswald handled the rifle?
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QDH2kQv/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
Since we know the lift was placed on a 3 inch by 5 inch index card ...
How do we know this?
(https://i.ibb.co/5Kk9sC8/76147813-7505-43-AB-9350-8914-B566-A5-BD.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Dw3wc4n/7-CF42-E48-31-C3-495-D-B57-F-A3280-F87-CDE3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/5Kk9sC8/76147813-7505-43-AB-9350-8914-B566-A5-BD.jpg)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Mr Crow! Thumb1:
"In order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository Building..."
----------------as opposed to:
"In order to establish whether any curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository Building..."
I.e. Let's close this thing down!
Remember, this is the same Mr Rankin who wrote the below on 16 March, the day after 2 curtain rods were submitted to the crime lab to check for Mr Oswald's prints...
(https://i.imgur.com/vjx8bs7.jpg)
:D
Since the curtain rod story from Frazier was known within 24 hours after the shooting, then why did it take 4 months to revisit the Paines garage concerning curtain rods?
On DAY ONE of the Nov 22/63 'investigation" at 3pm, maybe the info from BW Frazier about curtain rods could plausibly have not been relayed to the initial 3 police who searched Mrs Paines garage, so they did not bother to check for any rods, but a WHOLE WEEK goes by, and then a WHOLE MONTH and then 3 MORE MONTHS, and still no concern about curtain rods, until March 23rd, it became VERY IMPORTANT to conduct a search of Mrs Paine garage SIMULTANEOOS with taking more WC testimony from Mrs Paine as she watched.
BS:
.
Since the curtain rod story from Frazier was known within 24 hours after the shooting, then why did it take 4 months to revisit the Paines garage concerning curtain rods?
On DAY ONE of the Nov 22/63 'investigation" at 3pm, maybe the info from BW Frazier about curtain rods could plausibly have not been relayed to the initial 3 police who searched Mrs Paines garage, so they did not bother to check for any rods, but a WHOLE WEEK goes by, and then a WHOLE MONTH and then 3 MORE MONTHS, and still no concern about curtain rods, until March 23rd, it became VERY IMPORTANT to conduct a search of Mrs Paine garage SIMULTANEOOS with taking more WC testimony from Mrs Paine as she watched.
BS:
.
Here is where the WC became interested in Paine garage curtain rods, March 17 1964.
Here is where the WC became interested in Paine garage curtain rods, March 17 1964.
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?
Not long after the shooting Fritz is told of the missing Oswald and the Paine address (see collaborative timeline project thread https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1894.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1894.0.html)).
Fritz was going to go immediately to Irving but was asked to see Decker and sends three of his men instead (Rose, Stovall and Adamcek). They waited about half a block from the Paine house for Sherrif's Deputies Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford to join them. Some time later and after the rifle was found missing, Linnie May Randle drove up and spoke to Adamcek.
Mr. BELIN. What happened after it was brought inside?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I don't recall then at all. I left the house after awhile and went with, I believe it was, Mrs. Paine. I went with her to one of the neighbor houses to see about the children, leaving the children there. I left and went with her.
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.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else on there? Did she say anything that it was unusual for Oswald to be home at all during the week?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes; she did say that. That Oswald usually spent the weekends over there, and it was unusual for him to be there on a Thursday night and go to work with him on Friday.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you remember offhand?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I don't believe I do.
Funny that LMR knew of the "curtain rod" story the day before (supposedly) and yet failed to mention them. She obviously did not associate the long package with "curtain rods" at that time.
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.
Convincing?
Consider Frazier had left the TSBD sometime between 1.30pm and 2.00pm. He knew the President was dead. He knew the TSBD was the likely source of the shots. Oswald's name was plasteredd all over the TV and radio before 3pm. Do you think LMR and Buell talked before she went to talk to Adamcek.
I wonder exactly when did Buell first talk of curtain rods with his sister.
Indeed---the day after Mr Rankin had raised the curtain rods issue with Mr Hoover... which was itself the day after Agent Howlett submitted 2 curtain rods to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints...
The discovery of those curtain rods must have caused quite the panic amongst the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators! :D
I doubt that we will ever know WHO discovered the curtain rods in or near the TSBD......
Sadly, I have to agree with you there, Mr Cakebread! Happily, though, what we do know is what counts:
-----------------Two curtain rods were discovered in a place that warranted their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints...
-----------------Eight days after the submission of these two rods for fingerprint testing, two curtain rods were removed from the Paine garage!
Conclusion? The claim that no curtain rods were ever found at the Depository building is not just unsafe, it's just plain stoopid! :D
The discovery of those curtain rods must have caused quite the panic amongst the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators!
Yes!!..... So the question ( for me) becomes ..... WHO discovered the curtain rods?..... I would suspect that it was someone who surmised that Lee had dumped the curtain rods after leaving Buell Frazier who was charging his battery back in the parking lot, and before entering the back door of the TSBD. There were a few honest cops on the DPD ....and one of them was Lt Jack Revill.... Is it possible that Revill had taken it upon himself to look for the curtain rods that Frazier said the Lee carried that morning..... If so then they official WC "investigators" would be compelled to discredit the curtain rods......and have documentation that the curtain rods had been found in the Paine garage and had no connection to Lee Oswald.
I doubt that we will ever know WHO discovered the curtain rods in or near the TSBD......
This gets better and better. Oswald carries curtain rods to the TSBD but for some reason stashes them away outside before entering the building. So far so bad as that makes no sense. He then lies to the police and tells them he only had his lunch even though he has every incentive to acknowledge carrying curtain rods because it would help him. But instead he lies. Getting even worse. The authorities who are trying to frame him for the assassination then decide for some unknown reason to conduct a search for the curtain rods that they don't want anyone to know Oswald carried. LOL. And then they find them but instead of doing the obvious thing in this fantasy like throwing them away they fill out a form to test them for Oswald's prints! The very guy they don't want the curtain rods ever associated with. Can it get any better? Oh yes, then they convince Ruth Paine to lie about these curtain rods being in her garage the entire time when all the authorities have to do is keep quiet about them ever being found. Ludicrous and laughable. There are no words adequate to describe the absurdity of that fantasy narrative in which the very people trying to frame Oswald by denying he had any curtain rods are the same ones who bring them to light. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense. But again, if anyone here sincerely believes this form proves a conspiracy, then don't waste more time here. Take it to the NY Times or Wash Post. I'm sure they would be delighted to win a Pulitzer Prize. Get back to us on how that goes (assuming the guys in white coats don't capture you first).
The only thing that will ever ?make sense? to ?Richard? is every jot and tittle of the WC narrative.
Oswald carries curtain rods to the TSBD but for some reason stashes them away outside before entering the building. So far so bad as that makes no sense
Of course it makes sense.... Lee as playing the role of the person who was going to attempt to shoot JFK.... He wanted to be seen carrying a package that could be construed as containing a weapon.... And he didn't want it revealed that the package did not contain a weapon....Thus he told Frazier the curtain rod story. But he didn't want all of the TSBD employees asking him what he had in the package..... so he removed his sandwich and fruit from the sack and left the curtain rods in the sack....then he dumped the curtain rods beneath the loading dock before entering the back door near the Domino room.
Why is it that you so eagerly accept the utter nonsense presented by LBJ's cover up committee....and claim that logical actions that refute the WC make no sense?
Because your fantasy scenario makes no sense. Does it make sense for Oswald to "play a role" as the person who was going to attempt to shoot JFK to carry a package too short to contain the rifle? If Oswald is complicit in his own frame up as you suggest here, why not just carry the rifle in the bag that is found on the 6th floor? Why all this pointless subterfuge? Why bring his lunch that day? LOL. The entire point in your fantasy is to make him appear to be the assassin. Instead the plan is for Oswald to carry curtain rods in a shorter bag, to recover those items, plant the rifle and another bag, and then suppress the curtain rods and the shorter bag, but then find them and check them for prints for some unknown reason and contrary to all incentives to cover them up! Whew. You can't honestly believe that would be a plan even in your bizarre fantasy. If Oswald is complicit in his own frame up, he carries the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th. And that solves all the conspirators problems. It is bizarre that even in a situation in which you suggest that Oswald was part of the conspiracy, you can't bring yourself to accept that he carried the rifle and bag. A great insight on the CTer "mind" though.
Does it make sense for Oswald to "play a role" as the person who was going to attempt to shoot JFK to carry a package too short to contain the rifle?
So now you acknowledge that the flimsy paper sack was too short to contain the rifle....Thank you. However, just as you WC apologists have argued for decades the sack contained a rifle ....And ignorant people have IMAGINED that it was true.....
If Oswaldiswas unwittingly complicit in his own frame up as you suggest here, why not just carry the rifle in the bag that is found on the 6th floor?
Mr Smith, You're like talking to an addled brain 7 year old..... Lee Had no idea that JFK was going to be murdered....He was playing the same stupid game that he'd played at General Walker's house back in April....
I'm not going to try to explain anything more to you.. Who would be so stupid as too ask ....why not just carry the rifle in the bag that is found on the 6th floor?
Can you imagine a man carrying a rifle into a seven story building just a few hours before the POTUS is due to pass by that building?? He obviously couldn't have carried the rifle into the building where a dozen of his fellow employees were gathered waiting to go to work. Do you think the police wouldn't have been there asking him questions by 9:00 am?? Don't ask me anymore questions....You're a waste of time.
If you want to advocate this science fiction narrative, then accept the evidence that Oswald carried a long bag that contained the rifle.
The problem is (and if there's one thing we can agree on, it's the silliness of Walt's "hoax assassination" narrative), that there is no evidence that Oswald carried a long bag that contained the rifle.
I've never ever said that the 27 inch FLIMSY paper sack contained a rifle....Where did you get that absurd idea?
I HAVE said repeatedly that Lee was playing the same stupi game that he played at Walker's in April..... Where he fired a bullet through Walker's window to make it appear that he had ATTEMPTED to shoot one of Castro's arch foes.......
I didn?t say you did. That?s ?Richard??s absurd idea.
This, however, is your absurd idea.
Explain why you think the idea is absurd.....
There's no evidence whatsoever that either the Walker shooting or the JFK shooting were arranged as hoaxes to get Oswald into Cuba. That's just a Walt fabrication.
Are you really so naive that you think spies leave evidence like signed certified documents around to explain their actions?
No, I don't think that. I also don't think that just because Walt makes up a story, that there is any truth to it.
I'm sure you won't believe me....and frankly I don't care....But I did not make up the scenario that I've posted many times.... I'm not smart enough to find the solution by sorting the information. I had very good help in finding my way through the smoke screen.....
So who was it who made up your scenario?
Made up scenario: The fact that no curtain rods were ever found in the Depository after the assassination tells us that Mr Oswald had a rifle in the bag and told Mr Frazier it was curtain rods!
Deductive reasoning scenario: The fact that a pair of curtain rods were sent for testing for Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before a pair of curtain rods were removed from the Paine garage tells us that the conclusion that Mr Oswald brought a rifle and not curtain rods to work the morning of the assassination is radically unsafe!
Thumb1:
Alan, Walts scenario to some degree has deductive reasoning because of the fact that Oswald is recorded on a film made by someone, handing out "pro Castro" leaflets in New Orleans. This WREAKS of some sort of CIA or FBI operation and or, at same time, set up Oswald as the patsy.
Then also, just "coincidentally" Oswald the guy that is the star of this film, just happenes to get ina fist fight with non other than Carlos Bringuier". Can you say the word "LARP"? Follpwed up very shortly afterwards by yet another film of Oswald, the star, explaining Marxism is different from Communism.
Brilliant from Oswald in his own way. Set it up for the cameras to film him being punched by Bringuier.
Oswald usually handed out leaflets with his home address on them.
The one occasion Oswald is known to have used pamphlets with the "544 CAMP ST." stamp was August 9, 1963, the day Carlos Bringuier and friends discovered him holding a demonstration only a few blocks from Bringuier's store. A year and a half earlier, 544 Camp Street had briefly been the workplace of *drum roll * - Carlos Bringuier - when he had served the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
Oswald went to a lot of trouble to set up that arrest on Canal St. He wanted Bringuier to hit him on TV so he could go write the Fair Play for Cuba Committee telling them of his near martyrdom.
Clearly a well laid trap for Bringuier to confront Oswald (which he did) and they all got chucked in jail. Oswald had the choice to pay a $25 fine and leave or to stay in jail. He chose to stay in jail. The questioning officer later said it looked like Oswald had set Bringuier up. Hence the later appearances of "it was staged" in conspiracy books. It was staged. By Oswald. This was all done to prove to the Fair Play For Cuba HQ in New York that he was worthy and legit. A "street agitator".
Clearly a well laid trap for Bringuier to confront Oswald (which he did) and they all got chucked in jail. Oswald had the choice to pay a $25 fine and leave or to stay in jail. He chose to stay in jail.
Clearly a well laid trap for Bringuier to confront Oswald (which he did) and they all got chucked in jail. Oswald had the choice to pay a $25 fine and leave or to stay in jail. He chose to stay in jail.
What he wanted the FBI to know was that "someone" at 544 Camp street appeared to be in support of Fidel Castro. ( Carlos Bringuier had had an office at that address ....and so did Hoover's extra special agent Guy Bannister.)
Where did you get $25?
According to WC Oswald's fine was $10.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0192b.htm