JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan Ford on January 18, 2021, 10:18:00 PM

Title: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 18, 2021, 10:18:00 PM
Friends, this document gives us excellent grounds for believing that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository at some point after the assassination----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 18, 2021, 11:50:32 PM
Friends, this document gives us excellent grounds for believing that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository at some point after the assassination----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.


Lee Oswald denied that he had told Frazier that he was transporting curtain rods.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 19, 2021, 02:06:02 AM
Friends, this document gives us excellent grounds for believing that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository at some point after the assassination----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.


John Howlett was one of the conspirators who created the "re-enactment" video. That video is a outrageous presentation of false information, and it was created to trick the unwary into accepting the big lie that Lee Oswald fired the carcano from the sixth floor window and murdered President Kennedy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 19, 2021, 09:11:25 AM
Lee Oswald denied that he had told Frazier that he was transporting curtain rods.

We don't know that for sure, Mr Cakebread, but even if he did he may have had good reason to do so.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 19, 2021, 09:13:03 AM
John Howlett was one of the conspirators who created the "re-enactment" video. That video is a outrageous presentation of false information, and it was created to trick the unwary into accepting the big lie that Lee Oswald fired the carcano from the sixth floor window and murdered President Kennedy.

And the document I have posted proves that he and the WC put on quite the charade at the Paine residence on 23 March!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 19, 2021, 03:37:00 PM
We don't know that for sure, Mr Cakebread, but even if he did he may have had good reason to do so.

I agree ....You're right, We don't KNOW for sure that Lee denied transporting curtain rods...  However I believe he did.   I believe the curtain rod tale started with Linnie Mae Randle who had innocuously got her brother Buell involved by  attempting to get her "15 minutes of fame" when she went to the Paine residence and told the police that she had seen Lee Oswald ( who had already been reported to be the assassin on TV and radio ) carrying a long paper sack that morning.  ( suggesting that he had a rifle in that paper sack)   After that blew up in her face when the cops said that they could charge Buell with being an accessory to the crime, they made up the story about Lee telling Buell that the sack contained curtain rods.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 19, 2021, 06:58:44 PM
I agree ....You're right, We don't KNOW for sure that Lee denied transporting curtain rods...  However I believe he did.   I believe the curtain rod tale started with Linnie Mae Randle who had innocuously got her brother Buell involved by  attempting to get her "15 minutes of fame" when she went to the Paine residence and told the police that she had seen Lee Oswald ( who had already been reported to be the assassin on TV and radio ) carrying a long paper sack that morning.  ( suggesting that he had a rifle in that paper sack)   After that blew up in her face when the cops said that they could charge Buell with being an accessory to the crime, they made up the story about Lee telling Buell that the sack contained curtain rods.

You can believe what you wish, Mr Cakebread, but if your belief cannot explain the document I posted then your belief needs revising
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 19, 2021, 07:06:18 PM
You can believe what you wish, Mr Cakebread, but if your belief cannot explain the document I posted then your belief needs revising

explain the document   Mr Ford
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 19, 2021, 10:10:52 PM
explain the document   Mr Ford

The way I see it:, ....John Howlett ( a known conspirator,)  had taken curtain rods from (WHERE??) on March 15th, and submitted them to Detective JC Day and asked Day  to check them for Lee Oswald's finger prints....

Day checked them and found a legible finger print, that was not Lee Oswald's and Howlett picked up the curtain rods From JC day on March 24.   

Obviously, if the Curtain rods were in Paine's garage there existed the possibility that Lee could have handled them and left his finger prints on them.   But what would that prove??    The official story is that Lee had a disassembled 35 inch Carcano in the 27 inch long sack and therefore he was not transporting curtain rods as Buell Frazier said Lee had told him.   

Why on earth would Howlett want curtain rods with Lee's finger prints on them.....   

 

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 20, 2021, 02:47:29 PM
The way I see it:, ....John Howlett ( a known conspirator,)  had taken curtain rods from (WHERE??)

Gee, that's a tough one!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 20, 2021, 04:14:16 PM
Gee, that's a tough one!

So you admit that you don't know WHERE Howlett got the curtain rods......
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 20, 2021, 04:37:35 PM
So you admit that you don't know WHERE Howlett got the curtain rods......

~Sigh~

Texas School Book Depository building
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 20, 2021, 08:01:27 PM

Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.


Quote
And we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated, and even manufactured.
President Joseph Biden
January 20, 2021


So, a phone call made by an anonymous woman to Mr. Frazier is real evidence that current rods were found at the Depository?

If you live in a culture that assumes every claim made, even by an anonymous source, is true then you live in a culture where some “facts” are manufactured. It is inevitable.

Mellissa Carone manufactured false claims and presented them to the Michigan Legislature. Carone presented manufactured false facts, but at least she was not an anonymous source.

The culture you belong to doesn’t even measure up to the standards of the Trump culture.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 20, 2021, 10:05:18 PM
So, a phone call made by an anonymous woman to Mr. Frazier is real evidence that current rods were found at the Depository?

 ::)

No, Mr Bono--------------look at the document I posted, that's the evidence. Can you explain it away?

Quote
If you live in a culture that assumes every claim made, even by an anonymous source, is true then you live in a culture where some “facts” are manufactured. It is inevitable.

Mellissa Carone manufactured false claims and presented them to the Michigan Legislature. Carone presented manufactured false facts, but at least she was not an anonymous source.

The culture you belong to doesn’t even measure up to the standards of the Trump culture.

Off-topic drivel
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2021, 01:18:25 AM
The evidence indicates curtain rods being removed from Mrs. Paine’s garage, not the Depository building.

It looks like a request to pick up evidence was made on 03-15-64, the evidence was picked up on 03-23-64 and this paperwork was completed the next day on 03-24-64.

So, what is the big deal?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 21, 2021, 01:23:21 AM
The evidence indicates curtain rods being removed from Mrs. Paine’s garage, not the Depository building.

It looks like a request to pick up evidence was made on 03-15-64, the evidence was picked up on 03-23-64 and this paperwork was completed the next day on 03-24-64.

So, what is the big deal?

 :D

The big deal, Mr Bono, is that you can't read. These curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett on 3/15/64, eight days before Agent Howlett took two curtain rods from the Paine residence.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Wanna have another go?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2021, 04:34:44 AM
What Dallas Police officer says “Date Submitted”, March 15, on this form means when the object was picked up?
Could it mean something else, like when a request to pick up the object is made?

Where does it say the curtain rods were picked up on March 23?
Specimen released “3-24-64” seems reasonable, the curtain rods were released after they were picked up?

And if it does mean what you say, object picked up on March 15, 1964, but it really wasn’t, it’s not like I never heard of anyone filling in the wrong information on a report.
And what would be the purpose of filling in the wrong date when the object was picked up?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
What Dallas Police officer says “Date Submitted”, March 15, on this form means when the object was picked up?[
Could it mean something else, like when a request to pick up the object is made?

No, Mr Bono-----unless, that is, one is happy for one's research to be part of the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated, and even manufactured.

Quote
Where does it say the curtain rods were picked up on March 23?

Read Ms Ruth Paine's WC testimony at her home!

Quote
Specimen released “3-24-64” seems reasonable, the curtain rods were released after they were picked up?

Not if they were submitted before being picked up.

Quote
And if it does mean what you say,

No, it means what it says: "submitted"----------your creative semantics here are a lost cause

Quote
object picked up on March 15, 1964, but it really wasn’t, it’s not like I never heard of anyone filling in the wrong information on a report.

If "Lt. Day must have confused 23 March with 15 March" is the best you can do, then you're obviously comfortable with a culture in which facts themselves are manipulated, and even manufactured.

Quote
And what would be the purpose of filling in the wrong date when the object was picked up?

Who said it was the wrong date? These two curtain rods were submitted for fingerprint examination on 15 March---------------8 days before Ms Paine's testimony at her home.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 21, 2021, 07:20:05 PM

Read Ms Ruth Paine's WC testimony at her home!

Ms. Paine’s testimony goes on for pages and pages spread over many volumes. I always provide links to my claims.

Which Volume number did she talk about the curtain rods being picked up? Which page number?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 21, 2021, 08:00:41 PM
What Dallas Police officer says “Date Submitted”, March 15, on this form means when the object was picked up?
Could it mean something else, like when a request to pick up the object is made?

Where does it say the curtain rods were picked up on March 23?
Specimen released “3-24-64” seems reasonable, the curtain rods were released after they were picked up?

And if it does mean what you say, object picked up on March 15, 1964, but it really wasn’t, it’s not like I never heard of anyone filling in the wrong information on a report.
And what would be the purpose of filling in the wrong date when the object was picked up?

What Dallas Police officer says “Date Submitted”, March 15, on this form means when the object was picked up?
Could it mean something else, like when a request to pick up the object is made?


No, I don't think it could mean that. The document shown was used to submit evidence to the Identification Bureau of the DPD. So, in this case it means that Officer Howell submitted 2 curtain rods, to the Identification Bureau on 3/15/64 at 9:45 AM.

The document also says that Howell picked up the curtain rods on 3/24/64 from the Identifaction Bureau, where they were released to him by Lt Day.

Which leaves two questions to be answered;

1. When were the curtain rods picked up at Ruth Paine's house? I couldn't find the answer in Ruth Paine's testimony, but maybe I overlooked it

2. Why would Howell need to collect the curtain rods on 3/24/64?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 21, 2021, 08:51:08 PM
What Dallas Police officer says “Date Submitted”, March 15, on this form means when the object was picked up?

The document shown was used to submit evidence to the Identification Bureau of the DPD. So, in this case it means that Officer Howell submitted the evidence, in this case 2 curtain rods, to the Identification Bureau on 3/15/64 at 9:45 AM.

John Howlett was a Secret Service man ....and one of the creators of the video that is supposed to prove that Lee Oswald could have murdered JFK by ambushing him from the sixth floor window, and then scurrying to the NW corner and hastily dumping the carcano behind a row of boxes before charging unseen down the stairs to the second floor lunchroom where DPD officer Marrion Baker encountered him less than two minutes after the FIRST shot was fired.  The video that Howlett and the WC cover up committee created is a gross distortion of evidence.   The WC said that Howlett carried a carcano from the SE corner window to the NW corner and concealed the rifle behind the boxes before he walked down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom.  The video clearly shows that Howlett did NOT carry a rifle from the SE corner and carefully conceal it behind a row of boxes...Howlett was carrying a 3 foot long piece of 1 X 3 lumber which probably weighed less than a half pound and he slid it into a narrow crack behind some boxes at the head of the stairs.  A mannlicher carcano would NOT have fit in that crack because the sling and bolt handle would have prevented the insertion  of the rifle into that crack.

Howlett was one of the cover up men....so he shouldn't be believed about the curtain rods. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 21, 2021, 09:49:26 PM
WCH volume IX, pages 421-425

This testimony took place at Ruth Paine's house at at 7:30 p.m., on March 23, 1964.  At that time the curtain rods were in her garage and Ruth said that as far as she knew they had been in the same place since November 21, 1963.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 21, 2021, 11:32:15 PM
John Howlett was a Secret Service man ....and one of the creators of the video that is supposed to prove that Lee Oswald could have murdered JFK by ambushing him from the sixth floor window, and then scurrying to the NW corner and hastily dumping the carcano behind a row of boxes before charging unseen down the stairs to the second floor lunchroom where DPD officer Marrion Baker encountered him less than two minutes after the FIRST shot was fired.  The video that Howlett and the WC cover up committee created is a gross distortion of evidence.   The WC said that Howlett carried a carcano from the SE corner window to the NW corner and concealed the rifle behind the boxes before he walked down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom.  The video clearly shows that Howlett did NOT carry a rifle from the SE corner and carefully conceal it behind a row of boxes...Howlett was carrying a 3 foot long piece of 1 X 3 lumber which probably weighed less than a half pound and he slid it into a narrow crack behind some boxes at the head of the stairs.  A mannlicher carcano would NOT have fit in that crack because the sling and bolt handle would have prevented the insertion  of the rifle into that crack.

Howlett was one of the cover up men....so he shouldn't be believed about the curtain rods.

Walt, if Ruth Paine was correct in her testimony about the curtain rods being in her garage between November 21, 1963 and March 23, 1964, then Alan Ford is correct in asking for an explanation how Howlett was able to submit curtain rods to the DPD Identification Bureau on March 15, 1963.

As I see it, there are two options;

(1) the curtain rods submitted by Howlett on March 15, 1964 did not come from Ruth Paine's garage (in which it can be speculated that they possibly came from the TSBD, as Howlett wanted them tested for fingerprints) or

(2) the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage earlier, without her knowing about it, and returned on March 24, 1964 (which, in turn, could explain why Howlett collected them from the Identification Bureau on that same day).

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:05:31 AM
Walt, if Ruth Paine was correct in her testimony about the curtain rods being in her garage between November 21, 1963 and March 23, 1964, then Alan Ford is correct in asking for an explanation how Howlett was able to submit curtain rods to the DPD Identification Bureau on March 15, 1963.

As I see it, there are two options;

(1) the curtain rods submitted by Howlett on March 15, 1964 did not come from Ruth Paine's garage (in which it can be speculated that they possibly came from the TSBD, as Howlett wanted them tested for fingerprints) or

(2) the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage earlier, without her knowing about it, and returned on March 24, 1964 (which, in turn, could explain why Howlett collected them from the Identification Bureau on that same day).

The problem with this latter option, Mr Weidmann, is that it would mean that every single part of the following on-the-record exchange at the Paine residence on 23 March would have to be a pure invention:

Mr. JENNER - Is there another shelf below the shelf on which you found the first two packages?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; there is.
Mr. JENNER - And, Mr. Howlett, that shelf is about how far below the upper one on which we found the two packages?
Agent HOWLETT - About 10 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT - There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you please search the rest of that shelf and see if you can find any other curtain rods or anything similar to the curtain rods, and look on the bottom shelves, Mr. Howlett, will you please?
While he is doing that, Mrs. Paine, I notice there is on your garage floor what looks like a file casing you have for documents similar, at least it seems substantially identical to those that we had in Washington last week.
Mrs. PAINE - This is a filing case similar, yes, slightly different in color to one that you had in Washington. It contains madrigal music. It was on November 22 at the apartment where my husband was living.
Agent HOWLETT - I have just finished searching both shelves and I don't find any other curtain rods.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves, the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they are.
Mr. JENNER - And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I do not.
Mr. JENNER - And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage at any time on the 21st or 22d of November 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - None whatsoever.
Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.

(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

Mr. JENNER - Since we will have the exact physical exhibits we don't have to measure them, but perhaps for somebody who is reading the record, Mr. Howlett, your suggestion that we measure them is not a bad one. Let me describe the configuration of these rods. They are very light weight--what would you say that metal is, Mr. Howlett, tin--heavy tin?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - They are the sliding or extension type, one fitting into the other when closed entirely, measuring from upended tip to upended tip they are----
Agent HOWLETT - The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT - It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - These curtain rods--the ends of each of them are turned. Those ends extending are turned up how many inches?
Agent HOWLETT - About 2 inches measuring from the inside of the curtain rod.
Mr. JENNER - On the cream colored one, and what about the white one?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes; on the cream colored one and the white one measures about 2 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - Now, these curtain rods with the ends turned up form a "U," do they not, a long "U"?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2021, 12:19:04 AM
We are supposed to believe that Oswald actually carried curtain rods to the TSBD, those curtain rods were found by some unknown person who kept forever silent, the authorities covered up the fact that Oswald carried curtain rods but used the fact that he carried a long package to work to frame him for the crime, BUT then - wait for it - wait some more - months after the event when Oswald is dead and they have successfully framed him for the crime they then decide to document the curtain rods he didn't have and even test them for his prints!  The same curtain rods they went to such great lengths to suppress!  HA HA HA.  And they do this entirely on their own motion and document it in a form.  HA HA HA.  So crazy.  What an interesting world these CTers must live in.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2021, 12:27:37 AM
We are supposed to believe that Oswald actually carried curtain rods to the TSBD, those curtain rods were found by some unknown person who kept forever silent, the authorities covered up the fact that Oswald carried curtain rods but used the fact that he carried a long package to work to frame him for the crime, BUT then - wait for it - wait some more - months after the event when Oswald is dead and they have successfully framed him for the crime they then decide to document the curtain rods he didn't have and even test them for his prints!  The same curtain rods they went to such great lengths to suppress!  HA HA HA.  And they do this entirely on their own motion and document it in a form.  HA HA HA.  So crazy.  What an interesting world these CTers must live in.

Instead, we are supposed to believe that Oswald carried the CE 139 rifle into the depository in a bag that was too short to hold it even though there is ZERO evidence that he actually did.  HA HA HA.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:30:15 AM
We are supposed to believe that Oswald actually carried curtain rods to the TSBD, those curtain rods were found by some unknown person who kept forever silent, the authorities covered up the fact that Oswald carried curtain rods but used the fact that he carried a long package to work to frame him for the crime, BUT then - wait for it - wait some more - months after the event when Oswald is dead and they have successfully framed him for the crime they then decide to document the curtain rods he didn't have and even test them for his prints!  The same curtain rods they went to such great lengths to suppress!  HA HA HA.  And they do this entirely on their own motion and document it in a form.  HA HA HA.  So crazy.  What an interesting world these CTers must live in.

So.............. your explanation for the dates & information on this document is?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2021, 12:33:03 AM
So.............. your explanation for the dates & information on this document is?

Strawman "Smith" doesn't explain things.  He laughs maniacally and mutters incoherent rambles to himself.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
So.............. your explanation for the dates & information on this document is?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

He hasn't got one, Alan.

Facts are not Richard's thing. He much rather just make up some wacky tale and subsequent ridicule it.
Asking Richard for an answer is the same as asking Oswald for a loan.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:35:36 AM
Strawman "Smith" doesn't explain things.  He laughs maniacally and mutters incoherent rambles to himself.

And then runs away. Every time.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2021, 12:39:20 AM
And then runs away. Every time.

HA HA HA. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:41:18 AM
He hasn't got one, Alan.

Facts are not Richard's thing. He much rather just make up some wacky tale and subsequent ridicule it.
Asking Richard for an answer is the same as asking Oswald for a loan.

Indeed so, Mr Weidmann-------------------the Warren Gullibles are a funny bunch. You make a claim and they say 'You've no evidence!'. You show them evidence and they say 'No way would your evil conspirators have allowed this evidence to exist therefore it's not evidence!'
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:42:08 AM
HA HA HA.

So you can't explain the information and dates on the document? Got it, Mr Smith. Another triumph for you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2021, 12:53:41 AM
So you can't explain the information and dates on the document? Got it, Mr Smith. Another triumph for you!  Thumb1:

Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 12:57:22 AM
Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.

~Grin~

Let us know when you come up with an explanation, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2021, 01:19:09 AM
Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.

Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?

Maybe you should ask them (whoever they are) as the document shows it happened. So, why don't you deal with that and come up with a plausible explanation?

You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form

So, why don't you provide another interpretation?

Oh wait, did I just ask you for an answer? When will I ever learn....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2021, 05:39:58 PM


You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form

So, why don't you provide another interpretation?

Oh wait, did I just ask you for an answer? When will I ever learn....

Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 22, 2021, 07:19:37 PM
Indeed so, Mr Weidmann-------------------the Warren Gullibles are a funny bunch. You make a claim and they say 'You've no evidence!'. You show them evidence and they say 'No way would your evil conspirators have allowed this evidence to exist therefore it's not evidence!'

My dear Mr Ford.... I sincerely hope that you will accept this as constructive criticism  , because I believe that you have the potential to be a real asset in exposing the truth.  ...BUT ....You could be describing yourself  'You've no evidence!'. You show them him evidence and theyhe says...No Way....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2021, 07:46:14 PM
Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.

That's what I thought. Hiding behind the "you would dismiss it anyway" excuse...

I asked you to provide another interpretation. It doesn't matter if it's speculation or not. I merely want to find out why you dismiss one interpretation, yet can or will not provide another one. Saying it makes no sense is just a cop out. Parts of the WC narrative make no sense to me either, so is that the "end of story" also?

Go on, then, give us another interpretation...  Perhaps I agree with you. Who knows?

And, "Richard", let's not forget that anybody who dismisses something out of hand and not gives and alternative interpretation, is, by your own definition, a contrarian!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 22, 2021, 08:59:42 PM
Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.

So give us a narrative that
a) explains the information and dates on the document
b) makes sense to you.

Should be no trouble to a man of your formidable intellect and moral courage! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 12:14:12 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

OK, let's game this out......

1. Person X, a Depository employee, comes forward to the authorities with curtain rods s/he has found in the Depository

2. Person X is thanked and told, 'Don't worry, we will look into this'

3. Curtain rods are submitted to Lt. Day's lab (3/15/64)

4. Curtain rods are tested for Mr Oswald's prints

5. Curtain rods are formally released (3/24/64)

6. Person X is shown the submission/release form and told, 'OK, so we looked into this and Oswald's prints aren't on them----we ask you not to talk to anyone about the rods, it would only cause confusion'

7. The submission/release form is kept on file for the contingency that Person X----------or someone Person X has told-----------goes public: the form allows the 'investigating' authorities to assure folks that this was "looked into" thoroughly

8. Word of the discovery of curtain rods at the Depository spreads, however, and Mr Roy Truly is asked to give an on-the-record statement that no curtain rods were found at the Depository

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 01:41:51 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

OK, let's game this out......

1. Person X, a Depository employee, comes forward to the authorities with curtain rods s/he has found in the Depository

2. Person X is thanked and told, 'Don't worry, we will look into this'

3. Curtain rods are submitted to Lt. Day's lab (3/15/64)

4. Curtain rods are tested for Mr Oswald's prints

5. Curtain rods are formally released (3/24/64)

6. Person X is shown the submission/release form and told, 'OK, so we looked into this and Oswald's prints aren't on them----we ask you not to talk to anyone about the rods, it would only cause confusion'

7. The submission/release form is kept on file for the contingency that Person X----------or someone Person X has told-----------goes public: the form allows the 'investigating' authorities to assure folks that this was "looked into" thoroughly

8. Word of the discovery of curtain rods at the Depository spreads, however, and Mr Roy Truly is asked to give an on-the-record statement that no curtain rods were found at the Depository

 Thumb1:

How and ever! It is felt that something more needs to be done to destroy the notion that Mr Oswald really did bring curtain rods into work that day. And so an elaborate charade is put together at the Paine residence on 3/23: the 'discovery' and handing over to Agent Howlett of 2 curtain rods (to be marked 275 & 276!).

'Proof' that they never left the Paine household the morning of 11/22/63! 'Proof' that LHO lied to the man giving him a ride!!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: David Von Pein on January 23, 2021, 06:41:30 AM
Quote from: Walt Cakebread
Lee Oswald denied that he had told Frazier that he was transporting curtain rods.

We don't know that for sure...but even if he did he may have had good reason to do so.

But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 09:38:13 AM
But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)

That all you got, Mr von Pein? Really? 'We know Fritz' report is truthful because CTers think it's not'? V. poor!

Now---------how do you explain the information and dates on the document I've posted?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 23, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
But we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie. Oswald's denial is detailed in Captain Fritz' report. (Warren Report, Page 604; Next-to-last paragraph.) ....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm

Of course, a lot of CTers think that virtually all of Fritz' written report is a pack of made-up lies. (Which is merely par for the course for the imaginative conspiracy theorists of this world.)

we most certainly do know for sure that Oswald denied telling his "curtain rods" lie.

Dear Mr Von Pea Brain....   Please present solid proof that Lee was lying when he told Captain Fritz that he never told Buell Frazier that the 27 inch long sack ( that's Frazier's estimate of the length of the FLIMSEY light weight paper bag) that he carried in the rain that morning, contained curtain rods.     Please present the irrefutable proof so we can resolve this six decades old debate. 

 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 23, 2021, 05:40:21 PM
That's what I thought. Hiding behind the "you would dismiss it anyway" excuse...

I asked you to provide another interpretation. It doesn't matter if it's speculation or not. I merely want to find out why you dismiss one interpretation, yet can or will not provide another one. Saying it makes no sense is just a cop out. Parts of the WC narrative make no sense to me either, so is that the "end of story" also?

Go on, then, give us another interpretation...  Perhaps I agree with you. Who knows?

And, "Richard", let's not forget that anybody who dismisses something out of hand and not gives and alternative interpretation, is, by your own definition, a contrarian!

It can be as simple as a mistake on the date on the form.  Instead of a submission date of "3/15" it should have been "3/25".  That aligns with Paine's testimony on 3/23 and explains how the same exhibit numbers can appear on the form that weren't assigned until 3/23 (i.e. 275 and 276).  We know these are the same curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage because they have the exact same exhibit number as noted on the form.  So the curtain rods are obtained on 3/23 and assigned their exhibit numbers that day (as then reflected on the form) and provided to the DPD on 3/25.  As noted below, there is confusion on the release date which could have been 3/26 per the WC exhibit.  Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony.  Some information on the form could have been filled in at a later time (such as the correct exhibit numbers).

btw:  CE 1952 appears to contain a different date than the form Alan has posted.  It suggests the "specimen" was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24.  Demonstrating that this form could have been completed well after the fact and post dated back to the original times and dates.  Thus, the potential for confusion on the dates.  In addition, we know there were no curtain rods found at the TSBD because Roy Truly confirmed that to the WC when asked that specific question in Sept. '64.  If the purpose of this exercise was to appease some person who had found curtain rods at the TSBD, as Alan suggests, then having Roy Truly confirm in writing that no such curtain rods had ever been found there would entirely undermine that purpose.  The official record would be that no such curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  Thus, not a great story to tell someone who had found curtain rods at the TSBD as alleged by Alan.

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

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 23, 2021, 08:13:51 PM
That all you got, Mr von Pein? Really? 'We know Fritz' report is truthful because CTers think it's not'? V. poor!

Now---------how do you explain the information and dates on the document I've posted?

Anybody with a modicum amount of intelligence who has read Captain Fritz's memo should understand the Captain Fritz should have opened the memo with "Once upon a time" like all other fairytales
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 09:05:00 PM
It can be as simple as a mistake on the date on the form.  Instead of a submission date of "3/15" it should have been "3/25".

Which leaves you with a form that now has a submission date LATER than the release date. Which is as simple as a mistake on BOTH dates on the form!  :D

Quote
That aligns with Paine's testimony on 3/23

The only reason it aligns is that you have changed the number arbitrarily in order to force an alignment.

Quote
and explains how the same exhibit numbers can appear on the form that weren't assigned until 3/23 (i.e. 275 and 276).  We know these are the same curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage because they have the exact same exhibit number as noted on the form. So the curtain rods are obtained on 3/23 and assigned their exhibit numbers that day

How were the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 arrived at? Read the testimony--------it's a hoot!

Quote
(as then reflected on the form) and provided to the DPD on 3/25.  As noted below, there is confusion on the release date which could have been 3/26 per the WC exhibit.  Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints

Ludicrous to suggest that checking the garage for curtain rods would not have entered anyone's mind until months after the assassination!

And why on earth would two curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result show?

Quote
and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony.

In which case that phase of the testimony-taking in Ms Paine's garage is a complete charade, yes? Agent Howlett is only pretending to see the curtain rods for the first time.

Quote
Some information on the form could have been filled in at a later time (such as the correct exhibit numbers).

btw:  CE 1952 appears to contain a different date than the form Alan has posted.

No 'appears' about it!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/00/u8TYD7U2_o.gif)

Quote
It suggests the "specimen" was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24.

No, it suggests that *a* specimen was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24--------------and photographic evidence tells us further that testing was done on *a* specimen on 3/25 = a day AFTER *another* specimen was formally released.

Quote
Demonstrating that this form could have been completed well after the fact and post dated back to the original times and dates.  Thus, the potential for confusion on the dates. In addition, we know there were no curtain rods found at the TSBD because Roy Truly confirmed that to the WC when asked that specific question in Sept. '64. If the purpose of this exercise was to appease some person who had found curtain rods at the TSBD, as Alan suggests,

No he doesn't------------read again what Alan wrote!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 23, 2021, 09:39:12 PM
Which leaves you with a form that now has a submission date LATER than the release date. Which is as simple as a mistake on BOTH dates on the form!  :D

The only reason it aligns is that you have changed the number arbitrarily in order to force an alignment.

How were the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 arrived at? Read the testimony--------it's a hoot!

Ludicrous to suggest that checking the garage for curtain rods would not have entered anyone's mind until months after the assassination!

And why on earth would two curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result show?

In which case that phase of the testimony-taking in Ms Paine's garage is a complete charade, yes? Agent Howlett is only pretending to see the curtain rods for the first time.

No 'appears' about it!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/00/u8TYD7U2_o.gif)

No, it suggests that *a* specimen was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24--------------and photographic evidence tells us further that testing was done on *a* specimen on 3/25 = a day AFTER *another* specimen was formally released.

No he doesn't------------read again what Alan wrote!  Thumb1:

I don't follow your last point.  These are identical handwritten forms in every respect except one.  They have two different release dates.  One that indicates the curtain rods were released on 3/24 and the other indicates they were released on 3/26.  They make reference to the exact same items (i.e. 2 curtain rods) and results.  Right?  A 3/26 release date makes a mistake between 3/15 and 3/25 entirely possible.  What is "another" specimen that could have been released on 3/26 given the identical handwritten descriptions?  These documents appear to be duplicates in every respect including the placement of the handwriting. 

How is Howlett "pretending" to see the curtain rods for the first time?  They are taking Paine's testimony for the official record.  The four corners of a document and testimony doesn't mean that the parties have not discussed matters informally before the testimony.  In fact that seems probable.  They are not like Sherlock Holmes and Watson blindly searching for clues.  LOL.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 10:14:56 PM
I don't follow your last point.  These are identical handwritten forms in every respect except one.  They have two different release dates.  One that indicates the curtain rods were released on 3/24 and the other indicates they were released on 3/26.  They make reference to the exact same items (i.e. 2 curtain rods) and results.  Right?  A 3/26 release date makes a mistake between 3/15 and 3/25 entirely possible.

But that would still leave you with an original form---------countersigned by Agent Howlett---------that makes no such mistake possible. In most people's worlds, the 24th of the month comes before the 25th. In 'solving' (quite arbitrarily) one problem, you created a whole new one.

Quote
What is "another" specimen that could have been released on 3/26 given the identical handwritten descriptions?

Specimen A: submitted 3/15, released 3/24: two curtain rods that need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints because they were found in the Depository

Specimen B: submitted late-3/23 or within a day or two of that, released 3/26: two curtain rods that have taken the place (right down to the numbers 275 & 276) of the Depository curtain rods.

Quote
These documents appear to be duplicates in every respect including the placement of the handwriting.

Yes, they differ only in the release date & time, the placement of Lt. Day's releasing signature and the presence/absence of Agent Howlett's receiving signature. The 3/26 version is the one made public (in the WC vols.)

Quote
How is Howlett "pretending" to see the curtain rods for the first time?

I was speaking to the alternative scenario created by your words: "Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony."

If that were the case, then Agent Howlett would be both the man who submitted them to the lab AND subsequently pretended to be seeing them for the first time in the Paine garage.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 23, 2021, 11:07:09 PM
But that would still leave you with an original form---------countersigned by Agent Howlett---------that makes no such mistake possible. In most people's worlds, the 24th of the month comes before the 25th. In 'solving' (quite arbitrarily) one problem, you created a whole new one.

Specimen A: submitted 3/15, released 3/24: two curtain rods that need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints because they were found in the Depository

Specimen B: submitted late-3/23 or within a day or two of that, released 3/26: two curtain rods that have taken the place (right down to the numbers 275 & 276) of the Depository curtain rods.

Yes, they differ only in the release date & time, the placement of Lt. Day's releasing signature and the presence/absence of Agent Howlett's receiving signature. The 3/26 version is the one made public (in the WC vols.)

I was speaking to the alternative scenario created by your words: "Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony."

If that were the case, then Agent Howlett would be both the man who submitted them to the lab AND subsequently pretended to be seeing them for the first time in the Paine garage.

They are duplicate forms for the same items as specified on both forms "2 curtain rods" marked 275 & 276.  They appear to have made a copy of your "original" but changed the release date. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.  These documents are clearly making reference to the same curtain rods (275 and 276) and the handwritten words used are not only identical but they are in the exact same place on both forms!  It is a copy.  There is no "Specimen A" and "Specimen B" being submitted and released as you suggest. 

And why do you keep suggesting Howlett was "pretending" to be seeing them for the first time?  Paine had previously told them of their presence in her garage.  If the authorities had taken them and then returned them to that exact spot for her official testimony, then Paine's WC testimony on record would be confirmation of that fact.  They went to the garage, and Paine confirmed the curtain rods were there. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 11:14:58 PM
Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.

So, to sum up your 'explanation' of the document:

1. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the submission date
2. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 23, 2021, 11:29:19 PM
So, to sum up your 'explanation' of the document:

1. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the submission date
2. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date

There are clearly two documented release dates as there are identical forms with different release dates.  If the 3/26 release date is correct, everything else falls into place.  In your narrative, nothing makes sense.  Your fantasy conspirators successfully suppress the curtain rods, frame Oswald for the crime, and then months later on their own motion for some unknown reason decide to bring them to light to test them for his prints!  And conveniently they document all this on a form.  Then they ask Truly to confirm that no such curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD despite someone apparently finding them.  Makes no sense.  In my scenario, they just made a mistake as to the submission date.  The form may have been completed at some later time and the confusion over the release date supports the likelihood that they simply made a mistake with the submission date (likely 3/25 instead of 3/15).   The fact that the form references the same exhibit numbers that were apparently assigned on 3/23 supports the conclusion that the curtain rods were not submitted until after 3/23 and are the same curtain rods that were taken from Paine's garage.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2021, 11:38:07 PM
They are duplicate forms for the same items as specified on both forms "2 curtain rods" marked 275 & 276.  They appear to have made a copy of your "original" but changed the release date. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.  These documents are clearly making reference to the same curtain rods (275 and 276) and the handwritten words used are not only identical but they are in the exact same place on both forms!  It is a copy.  There is no "Specimen A" and "Specimen B" being submitted and released as you suggest. 

And why do you keep suggesting Howlett was "pretending" to be seeing them for the first time?  Paine had previously told them of their presence in her garage.  If the authorities had taken them and then returned them to that exact spot for her official testimony, then Paine's WC testimony on record would be confirmation of that fact.  They went to the garage, and Paine confirmed the curtain rods were there.

I am not 100% sure about this, but it seems to me that the submission form used must have had carbon copies. As it is a receipt, it could very well be that the original was kept by the officer who submitted the evidence and the other(s) remained with the DPD. Obviously the part "Specimen released to" would not have been filled out at that time.

When Howlett collected the curtain rods from Lt Day, on 3/24/63, the original copy of the document was used to fill in the details in the part "Specimen released to". That's the one Alan is referring to.

A carbon copy (which later became CE 1952) was later dated 3/26/63 and also counter signed by Day, but without noting the name of the person to which the evidence was being released.

That might explain the discrepancy between the two forms. It does of course justify the question why a carbon copy form was used to document a second (later) date?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 11:40:47 PM
There are clearly two documented release dates as there are identical forms with different release dates.  If the 3/26 release date is correct, everything else falls into place.

So your 'explanation' amounts to:

-------------they got the submission date wrong on the original form
-------------they got the release date wrong on the original form

After that, everything false into place!  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 23, 2021, 11:45:02 PM
So your 'explanation' amounts to:

-------------they got the submission date wrong on the original form
-------------they got the release date wrong on the original form

After that, everything false into place!  :D

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 23, 2021, 11:47:47 PM
Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.

And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 24, 2021, 12:02:02 AM
And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?

Again, if you believe that you have a document that confirms a conspiracy into the murder of President Kennedy, why waste your time on this forum endlessly posting that same document over and over again and asking the same questions while ignoring any contrary explanation.  Let me help you:

https://www.nytimes.com/tips
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 24, 2021, 12:08:37 AM
And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?

Didn't I just give a possible explanation?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 24, 2021, 12:17:10 AM
Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.

Why do you always run back to this default "suggesting a massive conspiracy" nonsense.

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, are you suggesting that it was so perfect that no mistakes were ever made by anybody involved it? And, since a conspiracy would go hand in hand with a cover up, why would it matter if any mistakes were made, when the evidence was supposed to be locked away at the National Archives for 75 years?

A few posts back I give a possible explanation for the different release dates (one on the original document and another on a carbon copy of that same document). That explanation suggests that Howlett did in fact collect the curtain rods on 3/24/63 and that Lt Day signed a carbon copy with the date 3/26/64, which ended up in the WC evidence collection.

Why not keep the conversation going and try to deal with that?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 24, 2021, 01:03:37 AM
Here is my suspicion: Oswald took the entire bag (with Tag label containing Mrs Paines address ) containing rods and some blinds from Mrs Paines garage.

 Entering the door of the roofed enclosed dock bldg about 20 seconds ahead of BW Frazier, Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

Oswald of course forgot about his bag of rods and blinds in his anxious departure from TSBD at the post assassination time.

The Bag was discovered by some TSBD employee weeks or month later, , and if there  was an address of  Paine residence on it, The bag may have been submitted as “lost item” at 1st until  someone higher up in the CYA DPD immediately understood the significance of this bag and took charge of the item to “return it” to the owner.

I can’t remember if Mrs Paine was on vacation   but if so, that would be probably when the bag would likely have been returned without her knowledge.

In effect, someone dedicated to the WC narrative of Oswald bag containing MC  rifle, decided it was imperative  to get this bag of rods and blinds back into the Paines garage ASAP and pray that Mrs Paine was unaware the bag had ever been removed

Then they would CYA again  with a fake”inspection” of Mrs Paines garage on the date she returns from vacation, in order to create false “proof” that no bag,rods or other items were missing from Mrs Paines garage, this securing the WC paper bag made with TSBD paper by Oswald to carry his rifle into TSBD on Nov 22/63



Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 10:26:45 AM
I am not 100% sure about this, but it seems to me that the submission form used must have had carbon copies. As it is a receipt, it could very well be that the original was kept by the officer who submitted the evidence and the other(s) remained with the DPD.

The original stayed with DPD, and (one presumes) one carbon copy also stayed with DPD and a second was given to Agent Howlett.

Quote
Obviously the part "Specimen released to" would not have been filled out at that time.

Exactly! Mr Colin Crow did some fine work on this a while back.

Quote
When Howlett collected the curtain rods from Lt Day, on 3/24/63, the original copy of the document was used to fill in the details in the part "Specimen released to". That's the one Alan is referring to.

A carbon copy (which later became CE 1952) was later dated 3/26/63 and also counter signed by Day, but without noting the name of the person to which the evidence was being released.

Exactly! And--------NB----------this was the version that was made public in the Warren vols.

I am suggesting that Agent Howlett took away a carbon copy of the fully completed (and countersigned) original form ("submitted": 3/15, "released": 3/24) and showed it to whichever Depository employee had come forward with the curtain rods.

Quote
That might explain the discrepancy between the two forms. It does of course justify the question why a carbon copy form was used to document a second (later) date?

Yes, as well as the continued question why two curtain rods were formally submitted 3/15 for fingerprint testing for Mr Oswald's prints and formally released 3/24.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 10:29:59 AM
Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.

Why do you always run back to this default "suggesting a massive conspiracy" nonsense.

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, are you suggesting that it was so perfect that no mistakes were ever made by anybody involved it? And, since a conspiracy would go hand in hand with a cover up, why would it matter if any mistakes were made, when the evidence was supposed to be locked away at the National Archives for 75 years?

A few posts back I give a possible explanation for the different release dates (one on the original document and another on a carbon copy of that same document). That explanation suggests that Howlett did in fact collect the curtain rods on 3/24/63 and that Lt Day signed a carbon copy with the date 3/26/64, which ended up in the WC evidence collection.

Why not keep the conversation going and try to deal with that?

Because all Mr Smith can come up with is the rather desperate theory that BOTH dates on the original form are a 'mistake'!

Maybe his next suggestion will be that the signed names are a 'mistake' too? This is how LNers tune out counter-fairytale data.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 10:40:08 AM
From WC testimony of Ms Ruth Paine, taken at her Irving residence 3/23-------------

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."
(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)


Question! Why did they choose the number 270 to begin marking this series of exhibits?

Answer! This entire needless testimony session at the Paine home was centered around ONE objective: to have in the official record two curtain rods marked 275 & 276. Because the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing eight days previously were marked with (on one) the digits 2-7-5 and (on the other) 2-7-6.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 24, 2021, 03:30:31 PM
Because all Mr Smith can come up with is the rather desperate theory that BOTH dates on the original form are a 'mistake'!

Maybe his next suggestion will be that the signed names are a 'mistake' too? This is how LNers tune out counter-fairytale data.

Has the NY Times responded to your "evidence" of a conspiracy to the kill President Kennedy?  No doubt a front page story.  Let us know how that goes.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 03:47:19 PM
Has the NY Times responded to your "evidence" of a conspiracy to the kill President Kennedy?  No doubt a front page story.  Let us know how that goes.

"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)


I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused!  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2021, 05:35:55 PM
Here is my suspicion: Oswald took the entire bag (with Tag label containing Mrs Paines address ) containing rods and some blinds from Mrs Paines garage.

 Entering the door of the roofed enclosed dock bldg about 20 seconds ahead of BW Frazier, Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

Oswald of course forgot about his bag of rods and blinds in his anxious departure from TSBD at the post assassination time.

The Bag was discovered by some TSBD employee weeks or month later, , and if there  was an address of  Paine residence on it, The bag may have been submitted as “lost item” at 1st until  someone higher up in the CYA DPD immediately understood the significance of this bag and took charge of the item to “return it” to the owner.

I can’t remember if Mrs Paine was on vacation   but if so, that would be probably when the bag would likely have been returned without her knowledge.

In effect, someone dedicated to the WC narrative of Oswald bag containing MC  rifle, decided it was imperative  to get this bag of rods and blinds back into the Paines garage ASAP and pray that Mrs Paine was unaware the bag had ever been removed

Then they would CYA again  with a fake”inspection” of Mrs Paines garage on the date she returns from vacation, in order to create false “proof” that no bag,rods or other items were missing from Mrs Paines garage, this securing the WC paper bag made with TSBD paper by Oswald to carry his rifle into TSBD on Nov 22/63

Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

WHY?? Would Lee Oswald want to hide a paper bag ??    If anybody had asked him what he had in the bag, he could simply have told them that it contained some curtain rods just as Frazier claimed Lee had told him. 

The idea that Lee hid a paper bag rebuts Fraziers tale that Lee had told him that the FLIMSEY light weight paper bag held curtain rods.     If Lee had successfully duped Buell Frazier and Frazier had simply accepted that explanation, then Lee would likely have used the same explanation if anybody had been inquisitive enough to ask him what he had in the sack.   ( And it;s highly unlikely that anybody would have been so inquisitive and rude as to ask the  unfriendly fellow employee " whatcha got in the bag? "   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2021, 05:50:29 PM
"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)


I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused!  :D

Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. 

Yes, You're right....And THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THEY WERE FORCED TO STEAL THE ELECTION.

If Trump had remained in office with the reins of power in his hands ....Biden was headed for the big house, and not the White house.    Just as LBJ was a cornered rat and need to get the reins out of the hands of JFK,  Biden was a cornered rat.

Now that he's at the Helm, he can control  the investigation into Hunter's activities.....   


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 06:43:10 PM
From WC testimony of Ms Ruth Paine, taken at her Irving residence 3/23-------------

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."
(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)


Question! Why did they choose the number 270 to begin marking this series of exhibits?

Answer! This entire needless testimony session at the Paine home was centered around ONE objective: to have in the official record two curtain rods marked 275 & 276. Because the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing eight days previously were marked with (on one) the digits 2-7-5 and (on the other) 2-7-6.

Now! I believe the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing by Agent Howlett (eight days before Ms Paine handed two curtain rods over to Agent Howlett in her garage) were indeed marked 275 & 276, just as noted on the form. However, these were not Exhibit numbers but precise manufacturer markings as to length: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

From Ms Paine's testimony session at Irving:

Agent HOWLETT - The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT - It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.


2 feet 3 1/2 inches = 27.5 inches. Ain't that a coincidence! :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 06:52:45 PM
Now! I believe the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing by Agent Howlett (eight days before Ms Paine handed two curtain over to Agent Howlett in her garage) were indeed marked 275 & 276, just as noted on the form. However, these were not Exhibit numbers but precise manufacturer markings as to length: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

From Ms Paine's testimony session at Irving:

Agent HOWLETT - The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT - It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.


2 feet 3 1/2 inches = 27.5 inches. Ain't that a coincidence! :D

And! What did Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle estimate as the length of the bag Mr Oswald brought with him to work that morning?

27 inches.

They were very, very close!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2021, 09:59:27 PM
And! What did Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle estimate as the length of the bag Mr Oswald brought with him to work that morning?

27 inches.

They were very, very close!  Thumb1:

So you believe that Lee Was in fact transporting curtain rods in that paper bag?    If he was ....WHY would he deny that ??
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 24, 2021, 10:09:21 PM
So you believe that Lee Was in fact transporting curtain rods in that paper bag?

Of course he was

Quote
If he was ....WHY would he deny that ??

We don't know for sure that he did-----------as we have seen elsewhere, Mr Oswald's words were twisted outrageously in the interrogation reports.

However, IF he did deny it, there's a simple explanation: he knows he stands accused of supplying the rifle, he knows he's been set up, and he understandably does not wish to admit to having brought ANY large package to work that morning.

He may even have checked shortly after the assassination for his curtain rods (in one of the first floor storage rooms perhaps?) and found them gone. At which point he will have put 2 and 2 together. In which case.... now, in interrogation, there is no point in confirming what Mr Frazier is saying about the curtain rods: they are not where he left them, so confirming them only makes him look worse.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 25, 2021, 12:40:40 AM
Of course he was

We don't know for sure that he did-----------as we have seen elsewhere, Mr Oswald's words were twisted outrageously in the interrogation reports.

However, IF he did deny it, there's a simple explanation: he knows he stands accused of supplying the rifle, he knows he's been set up, and he understandably does not wish to admit to having brought ANY large package to work that morning.

He may even have checked shortly after the assassination for his curtain rods (in one of the first floor storage rooms perhaps?) and found them gone. At which point he will have put 2 and 2 together. In which case.... now, in interrogation, there is no point in confirming what Mr Frazier is saying about the curtain rods: they are not where he left them, so confirming them only makes him look worse.

This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense.  It is laughable.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 25, 2021, 12:42:06 AM
"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)


I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused!  :D

Huh?  You are losing it.  Send your "evidence" to them or admit you are fraud who doesn't really believe that it proves a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 25, 2021, 02:32:43 AM
This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense.  It is laughable.

A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense. 

Geeez!....Watta revoltin development this is ! ( As William Bendix used to say )  Here I am finding myself in agreement with "Richard Smith"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 25, 2021, 09:28:56 AM
This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty.

You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times? :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 25, 2021, 04:19:34 PM
You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times? :D

You are still here?  What do you expect to happen?  You have posted this same form about a thousand times here.  We have had the same discussions many times over.  Move on to the NY Times or any other media outlet that you choose if you believe it proves a conspiracy.  Then get back to us with the results.  Good luck!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 25, 2021, 04:36:00 PM
You are still here?  What do you expect to happen?  You have posted this same form about a thousand times here.  We have had the same discussions many times over.  Move on to the NY Times or any other media outlet that you choose if you believe it proves a conspiracy.  Then get back to us with the results.  Good luck!

Still running from the discussion with your pathethic "tell it to the NY Times" BS, I see

Now why am I not surprised, contrarian?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 25, 2021, 05:25:13 PM
Still running from the discussion with your pathethic "tell it to the NY Times" BS, I see

Now why am I not surprised, contrarian?

Alan has posted this same form hundreds of times and asked the same question over and over.  I've provided a possible explanation.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.   No one else has chimed in.  What do you expect to happen now?  What is to be gained from just restating the same points over and over?  If he truly believes that he has "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to kill the president of the United States, he should take that evidence to the media or authorities in Texas.  Isn't that what a normal person would do if they actually thought that this form proved a conspiracy?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 25, 2021, 06:31:34 PM
Alan has posted this same form hundreds of times and asked the same question over and over.  I've provided a possible explanation.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.   No one else has chimed in.  What do you expect to happen now?  What is to be gained from just restating the same points over and over?  If he truly believes that he has "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to kill the president of the United States, he should take that evidence to the media or authorities in Texas.  Isn't that what a normal person would do if they actually thought that this form proved a conspiracy?

Let us know when you come up with a non-risible explanation for the document, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 26, 2021, 04:37:44 PM
Let us know when you come up with a non-risible explanation for the document, Mr Smith!  Thumb1:

Instead of just typing the same response over and over why not articulate what you want to happen?  You have posted that form at least a hundred times here.  We have had these exact same discussions many times.   If you actually believe that you were in possession of evidence of a conspiracy, it seems like the next logical step would be to bring that to the attention of the media or authorities.  But you appear unwilling to do so.  There are probably some other lines of research to pursue.  Did Howlett keep any notes?  Ruth Paine is still alive and responds to questions.  Maybe ask her if she recalls the sequence of events etc.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 26, 2021, 08:20:43 PM
Instead of just typing the same response over and over why not articulate what you want to happen?  You have posted that form at least a hundred times here.  We have had these exact same discussions many times.   If you actually believe that you were in possession of evidence of a conspiracy, it seems like the next logical step would be to bring that to the attention of the media or authorities.  But you appear unwilling to do so.  There are probably some other lines of research to pursue.  Did Howlett keep any notes?  Ruth Paine is still alive and responds to questions.  Maybe ask her if she recalls the sequence of events etc.

If you actually believe that you were in possession of evidence of a conspiracy, it seems like the next logical step would be to bring that to the attention of the media or authorities.

I know that you're serious , Mr "Smith"....And the fact that you'd suggest such a stupid and futile action reveals a very uncritical and  childlike, naive mind.   If you were being sexually abused by your father....would you take your case to your father?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 26, 2021, 10:21:49 PM
Instead of just typing the same response over and over why not articulate what you want to happen?  You have posted that form at least a hundred times here.  We have had these exact same discussions many times.   If you actually believe that you were in possession of evidence of a conspiracy, it seems like the next logical step would be to bring that to the attention of the media or authorities.  But you appear unwilling to do so.  There are probably some other lines of research to pursue.  Did Howlett keep any notes?  Ruth Paine is still alive and responds to questions.  Maybe ask her if she recalls the sequence of events etc.

If you had a non-risible explanation for the document you wouldn't be resorting to this inane argument
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 26, 2021, 10:52:48 PM
Substitute the word “placed” for the word “hide” and Oswald therefore placed his bag someplace in the loading dock area just before he entered the TSBD back door before BW Frazier follows some 30 seconds later .

BWF does state seeing Oswald carry a bag INTO the  back door. However  the door that BW Frazier referring  , is actually the back door of the attached roofed annex bldg , which is the enclosed part of the loading dock, and thus NOT the back door of the TSBD bldg., which is the 2nd door AFTER entering the loading dock annex bldg back door.



Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 27, 2021, 12:53:26 AM
If you actually believe that you were in possession of evidence of a conspiracy, it seems like the next logical step would be to bring that to the attention of the media or authorities.

I know that you're serious , Mr "Smith"....And the fact that you'd suggest such a stupid and futile action reveals a very uncritical and  childlike, naive mind.   If you were being sexually abused by your father....would you take your case to your father?

That is a very weird and even insane analogy.  You believe that every media outlet and law enforcement authority in 2021 (well after anyone involved is dead or in a nursing home) is still in on the conspiracy?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 27, 2021, 12:57:07 AM
If you had a non-risible explanation for the document you wouldn't be resorting to this inane argument

"Non-risible"?  Are you an alien?  Could you at least try to communicate in a coherent manner?  So you are not going to make this discovery known to the media or law enforcement even though it proves a conspiracy to kill JFK?  That seems odd.  Even non-risible.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 27, 2021, 01:02:04 AM
"Non-risible"?  Are you an alien?  Could you at least try to communicate in a coherent manner?  So you are not going to make this discovery known to the media or law enforcement even though it proves a conspiracy to kill JFK?  That seems odd.  Even non-risible.

The solution you came up with, Mr Smith-----that the submission date AND the release date on the form are 'mistakes'------is idiotic. (If that last word's too hi-falutin' for you, I have more.)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2021, 02:39:39 AM
That is a very weird and even insane analogy.  You believe that every media outlet and law enforcement authority in 2021 (well after anyone involved is dead or in a nursing home) is still in on the conspiracy?

You believe that every media outlet and law enforcement authority in 2021 (well after anyone involved is dead or in a nursing home) is still in on the conspiracy?

Your response once again reveals how stupid you are Mr  "Smith".....   The fairytale that was hatched in 1963 has taken root and is accepted by the press and law enforcement....  No Reporter that values his career and his paycheck would pursue  anything about this case. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 27, 2021, 03:30:37 AM
This is an excellent example that Walt is providing for all the lock step anti Trumpers which is to demonstrate how 2 persons with similar political views (imo) can have opposing opinions concerning the JFK assassination, to the point an accusation of “stupid” assigned as the reason. :)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2021, 04:18:42 AM
This is an excellent example that Walt is providing for all the lock step anti Trumpers which is to demonstrate how 2 persons with similar political views (imo) can have opposing opinions concerning the JFK assassination, to the point an accusation of “stupid” assigned as the reason. :)

Zeon.....I'm neither pro nor anti Trump....   As far as I'm concerned Trump created the mess that allowed the shadow government to get him out of the Whitehouse.

As far as I'm concerned a politician is a politician regardless of his seated party allegiance....   And politician is simply another way to spell con man.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 27, 2021, 07:08:34 AM
Trump turned the White House into the spombleprofglidnoctobunse House, and will eventually wind up in the Big House.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Rick Plant on January 27, 2021, 10:07:06 AM
Trump turned the White House into the spombleprofglidnoctobunse House, and will eventually wind up in the Big House.

Thumb1:

Don't forget his GOP co-conspirators in Congress.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Rick Plant on January 27, 2021, 10:35:21 AM
Here's a couple of points that nobody has brought up.

Gladys Johnson, Oswald's landlady, testified that there were curtain rods already up in his room.

Jack Dougherty saw Oswald come in the back door at 8:00 empty handed.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 27, 2021, 12:35:18 PM
Thumb1:

Don't forget his GOP co-conspirators in Congress.

They're still armed.. these fck'n Americans and their guns
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 27, 2021, 12:46:17 PM
Here's a couple of points that nobody has brought up.

Gladys Johnson, Oswald's landlady, testified that there were curtain rods already up in his room.

Jack Dougherty saw Oswald come in the back door at 8:00 empty handed.

Dougherty was mental
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 27, 2021, 03:43:40 PM
Here's a couple of points that nobody has brought up.

Gladys Johnson, Oswald's landlady, testified that there were curtain rods already up in his room.

Jack Dougherty saw Oswald come in the back door at 8:00 empty handed.

Frazier saw Oswald go into the TSBD carrying his long package.  And he had rode with him to work and asked him about the package.  So there is no doubt Oswald had such a package and carried it into the building. Or do you think it somehow disappeared as he walked into the building?   Dougherty didn't see Oswald "empty handed."  He just didn't notice it.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 27, 2021, 04:39:25 PM
Frazier saw Oswald go into the TSBD carrying his long package.

Well, a longish package... ~27 inches (sorry!)

Quote
And he had rode with him to work and asked him about the package.  So there is no doubt Oswald had such a package and carried it into the building. Or do you think it somehow disappeared as he walked into the building?   Dougherty didn't see Oswald "empty handed."  He just didn't notice it.

Correct  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 27, 2021, 04:46:39 PM
From WC testimony of Ms Ruth Paine, taken at her Irving residence 3/23-------------

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."
(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)


Question! Why did they choose the number 270 to begin marking this series of exhibits?

Answer! This entire needless testimony session at the Paine home was centered around ONE objective: to have in the official record two curtain rods marked 275 & 276. Because the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing eight days previously were marked with (on one) the digits 2-7-5 and (on the other) 2-7-6.

So! If at some point in the future Witness X (the person who found the curtain rods in the Depository) comes forward and talks about having found two curtain rods marked 275 & 276, the 'investigating' authorities have an insurance policy in place: the witness is obviously fabricating a story based on Exhibits 275 & 276.

Years later, a hit piece on Witness X's credibility will be posted to the McAdams garbage website!  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 27, 2021, 04:51:29 PM
Dougherty was mental

Except when you need him to be the one who took down the elevator from the fifth floor
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2021, 06:01:43 PM
You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times? :D

Yes, isn't the New York Times part of "Richard's" orange idol's "fake news" conspiracy?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2021, 06:03:34 PM
Alan has posted this same form hundreds of times and asked the same question over and over.  I've provided a possible explanation.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.   No one else has chimed in.  What do you expect to happen now?  What is to be gained from just restating the same points over and over?  If he truly believes that he has "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to kill the president of the United States, he should take that evidence to the media or authorities in Texas.  Isn't that what a normal person would do if they actually thought that this form proved a conspiracy?

Hilarious coming from the contrarian who has never provided a scintilla of evidence that Oswald killed the president of the United States.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2021, 06:09:57 PM
Frazier saw Oswald go into the TSBD carrying his long package.  And he had rode with him to work and asked him about the package.  So there is no doubt Oswald had such a package and carried it into the building. Or do you think it somehow disappeared as he walked into the building?   Dougherty didn't see Oswald "empty handed."  He just didn't notice it.

No, Frazier saw Oswald go into the door into the north annex area.  It was not the same door that was in view of Dougherty.  And Frazier was so far behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see that Oswald still had the flimsy 2-foot bag with him at the time.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2021, 07:14:09 PM
No, Frazier saw Oswald go into the door into the north annex area.  It was not the same door that was in view of Dougherty.  And Frazier was so far behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see that Oswald still had the flimsy 2-foot bag with him at the time.

Perhaps Mr "Smith" should review Jack Dougherty's testimony......Dougherty was definite...He said that Lee was NOT carrying a long paper sack or any parcel when he entered the back door of the shipping room that morning.   As I recall Dougherty's words were a bit odd ...  When he was being badgered by the lawyer (Ball ?) who was trying to trick him into saying that he had seen a package in Lee's hands, He said something like  "Well if he did I couldn't see it".  And then the Lawyer ( Ball?)  tried again by saying are you sure or are you guessing?....Whereupon Dougherty said that he DEFINITELY saw that Lee wasn't carrying anything.   

Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 27, 2021, 07:49:49 PM
Then there's this----------

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2021, 07:56:12 PM
Funny how Dougherty seems to be the only person that Bill Shelley ever told this story to...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2021, 08:20:55 PM
Funny how Dougherty seems to be the only person that Bill Shelley ever told this story to...

Not so funny.....   Or maybe we have different sense of what's funny.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2021, 08:46:35 PM
No, Frazier saw Oswald go into the door into the north annex area.  It was not the same door that was in view of Dougherty.  And Frazier was so far behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see that Oswald still had the flimsy 2-foot bag with him at the time.

"Flimsy" That's how Buell Frazier describes the brown paper that was used to manufacture the paper bag that Lee carried.  I think I know the paper that Frazier was referring to, and if it's the paper that I'm thinking of, then Lee had good reason to cup the sack in his hands that damp rainy morning......  ( He was concerned that his lunch might fall out the bottom, and he didn't like mud sandwiches)   

OOOPs I didn't finish.....   Who can explain the contradiction between Buell Frazier, ( who said that Lee was carrying a flimsy paper bag as he approached the door to the loading dock) and  Jack Dougherty, who said he was certain that Lee was not carrying anything in his hands when he entered the shipping room at the back door)    Those two doors are about 35 feet apart...   Is it possible that the flimsey paper bag started to fall apart and Lee simply put his sandwich and apple in his Jacket pocket ?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 28, 2021, 05:13:27 AM
I don’t see why any statement Will Fritz claims Oswald made, should be accepted as truth

This the guy that couldn’t find any way to record what was said. When there were following available options

1. Tom Aleya with a motion camera
2. A dictabelt
3. A reel to reel tape recorder
3. A court stenographer
4. A secretary who could use shorthand
5.reliable attorney(s) with good reputation to be present with their own recording devices and secretary note takers

Instead, Fritz got a call from LBJ and then Fritz chose the worst possible way to record for history what Oswald had to say.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 04:17:00 PM
Well given Fritz's apparent propensity to threaten people he was interrogating, I'm sure the lack of recording was deliberate.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 28, 2021, 05:11:02 PM
Well given Fritz's apparent propensity to threaten people he was interrogating, I'm sure the lack of recording was deliberate.

Well that was standard operating procedure (SOP) in Fritz' homicide division.....and many admired the way he operated.  Henry Wade for one...And J.E Hoover was also an admirer ...Hoover was said to have proclaimed that he liked the way  those fellas down there in Dallas operated.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 28, 2021, 07:24:55 PM
Perhaps Mr "Smith" should review Jack Dougherty's testimony......Dougherty was definite...He said that Lee was NOT carrying a long paper sack or any parcel when he entered the back door of the shipping room that morning.   As I recall Dougherty's words were a bit odd ...  When he was being badgered by the lawyer (Ball ?) who was trying to trick him into saying that he had seen a package in Lee's hands, He said something like  "Well if he did I couldn't see it".  And then the Lawyer ( Ball?)  tried again by saying are you sure or are you guessing?....Whereupon Dougherty said that he DEFINITELY saw that Lee wasn't carrying anything.   

Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

Imagine a contrarian CTer applying their usual standard of proof to that testimony.  Dougherty was anything but definitive on the topic and don't you often question aspects of his testimony and imply he was involved in the conspiracy?  LOL. There is no doubt that Frazier confirmed that Oswald carried a long package into the building that morning. 

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

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


Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 07:49:49 PM
LOL. There is no doubt that Frazier confirmed that Oswald carried a long package into the building that morning. 

LOL.

Frazier didn't see Oswald enter the building -- he saw him enter the annex area.  Also:

Tom Meros: And when he walked on ahead of you could you even see the package?
Buell Frazier:  No
Tom Meros: Unless you knew it was there, you wouldn't know what to look for.  You wouldn't even know that he had a package in his hand.
Buell Frazier: That is correct.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 28, 2021, 08:18:43 PM
LOL.  The loons are going to take us down the rabbit hole that Oswald got out of the car with his package, was seen by Frazier walking toward the TSBD, Frazier followed directly behind him, saw him to go into the building but there is doubt as to whether Oswald was carrying a package into the building?  Again, Frazier is following behind Oswald and enters the same door.  If Frazier is following Oswald, Oswald has a package, and Frazier encounters no discarded package while walking a few seconds behind Oswald, where did it go if not into the building?  Wow.  No thanks.  The facts speak for themselves.  No amount of dishonesty or contrarian mumbo jumbo changes them.

Mr. FRAZIER - All right. Like I say, he was standing right about there when I got out of the car so naturally he started off walking so we just come on right on just like you would come across these tracks right here, and he was coming right on along the fence like that. Just coming right on, right here now is the School Book Depository, right, so he was coming right on down this fence there and he was coming across these tracks, and standing right in here somewhere at the door.
Mr. BALL - Door?
Mr. FRAZIER - Eight.
Mr. BALL - At the end of that put a "XY", so "X" to "XY" will represent the course he walked. It shows "XY".
Mr. FRAZIER - Eight.
Mr. BALL - Then "X" to "XY" is the course he took, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you go in the same door?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL - You walked the same direction?
Mr. FRAZIER - Eight.
Mr. BALL - Now when he went in the door you were about 50 feet behind him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. The last time I saw him I was right in this area coming across these railroad tracks and I just happened to glance up and see him going through the door there and shut the door.
Mr. BALL - Let's see, the last time you saw him he was at the door?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Which is at "XY" and you were crossing the railroad, tracks on Pacific Avenue?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I say this is Houston.
Mr. BALL - Pacific runs east and west?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Put a mark there, put a "Z" there as to your location.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right in there.
Mr. BALL - That is about where you were, a "Z" when he entered the door at "XY"?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Now, you went on in the Building, did you, afterwards?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. I went on in.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 28, 2021, 08:38:22 PM
Buell Frazier WC Testimony

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm


So much for Coach Meros
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 08:47:08 PM
LOL.  The loons are going to take us down the rabbit hole that Oswald got out of the car with his package, was seen by Frazier walking toward the TSBD, Frazier followed directly behind him, saw him to go into the building but there is doubt as to whether Oswald was carrying a package into the building?  Again, Frazier is following behind Oswald and enters the same door.  If Frazier is following Oswald, Oswald has a package, and Frazier encounters no discarded package while walking a few seconds behind Oswald, where did it go if not into the building?  Wow.  No thanks.  The facts speak for themselves.  No amount of dishonesty or contrarian mumbo jumbo changes them.

What's really loony is arguing with Frazier about what Frazier saw.  Again, the annex is not where Dougherty was sitting, and Frazier wasn't watching Oswald the entire time they were walking toward it.  Adding the words "no doubt" to an assumption does not turn it into a fact.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 08:49:02 PM
Buell Frazier WC Testimony

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm


So much for Coach Meros

Sure -- sticking out at a 45 degree angle.   ::) 

Or was he just glad to see you?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 28, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
In which we learn that if you follow someone walking with a package but don't "watch them" every moment the package might disappear into thin air as they walk in front of you.  Frazier walked the same path and entered the same door as Oswald.  Just seconds behind him. Oswald was carrying his package as he walked toward the building.  Frazier did not see the package discarded as he followed Oswald.  What happened to it if Oswald didn't carry it into the building?  Why would Oswald carry his "lunch" as some of these same contrarians have argued but drop it before entering the building?  We will never know since the obvious purpose of these inane types of claims is merely to play the contrarian.   Weak sauce of a defense attorney trying to raise false doubt for a client that he knows is guilty. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 09:34:19 PM
In which we learn that if you follow someone walking with a package but don't "watch them" every moment the package might disappear into thin air as they walk in front of you.

No, that's just one of Strawman "Smith's" trademark strawmen.  The bottom line is that Frazier did not see Oswald carry a package into the TSBD building.

But even if he did, you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the package contained a rifle.  So what's the point?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 28, 2021, 09:38:16 PM
The whole curtain rod thing is a big fat red herring, concocted by the conspirators as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping. Oswald knew he was the designated patsy and his handlers instructed him to take a long package into the TSBD. Whether it contained a rifle or not is irrelevant; it only needed to implicate Oswald to the rifle found in the building.

The conspirators got Oswald a job there, they gave him a whole empty floor to set up shop, they gave him a job as a false defector and portrayed him as a commie sympathizer, they acquired a MC rifle and took some shots into a swimming pool to create CE 399 (but forgot to sight in the scope), wiped all their prints off the rifle, took the MC and a handgun (which would become the other murder weapon) over to Ozzie's house and took some pics with him holding the murder weapons and some commie literature (using 2 cameras). This left the conspirators (DPD) with 2 options:

1) Leave the rifle with Oswald and let him smuggle it into the TSBD, disassembled in a paper sack.
2) Have Oswald pretend to smuggle the rifle into the building but have someone else actually do it.

If (1) is true then this is how Oswald must have carried the paper sack with rifle parts in it:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack3.jpg)

Clearly, the paper sack found at the scene was not long enough to carry the disassembled MC rifle. The conspirators would also be relying on Oswald not getting caught reassembling the rifle on the 6th floor and setting up the SN. No way. Especially since the MC was only planted to frame the patsy, not to take any shots with. The only time the MC was used was to create CE 399, and not by Oswald. So (1) is out and someone else must have smuggled in the rifle.

Whoever took the MC into the TSBD, must have had a key to the building and brought it in discretely and off hours. Then they had plenty of time to wipe off any prints but they likely used gloves to handle the rifle in the 1st place before ditching on the 6th floor under some boxes. They also set up the sniper`s nest and placed the 3 hulls in a tight group next to the window, which Fritz thought looked so contrived that he picked them up with his bare hands and later tossed them back onto the floor for a more believable in-situ photo of the crime scene.

Otherwise, Oswald never touched the rifle again after the BYPs and he didn't smuggle in the disassembled rifle in a paper sack, reassemble it on the 6th floor, ditch it, later retrieve it and take 3 shots at the POTUS, ditch it again and not get a single fingerprint on the rifle or any nitrates on his face. The conspirators would never have relied on one unpracticed shooter using a piece of crap rifle with a wonky scope. Would you?

Face it, this was a conspiracy and Oswald was the designated patsy. He never took a shot because only token shots came from the TSBD (probably from a Mauser) to incriminate patsy Oswald. He just hoped he wouldn't get double-crossed by his handlers, the DPD and Jack Ruby.




Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 28, 2021, 09:51:44 PM
Sure -- sticking out at a 45 degree angle.   ::) 

Or was he just glad to see you?

No 45-degree angle necessary
And keep me out of your sex fantasies, Tex
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 28, 2021, 11:42:23 PM
No 45-degree angle necessary

It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 28, 2021, 11:56:51 PM
It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.

Where did I say anything about the package necessarily needing to be seen over the shoulder? Where do you get 38"?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2021, 12:02:19 AM
Where did I say anything about the package necessarily needing to be seen over the shoulder?

 ::)

You didn't, because you're ignorant about the case.  But Frazier did.  And by that, I mean Buell Frazier.  Not that "other Frazier" who you think interrogated him.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 29, 2021, 04:07:53 AM
::)

You didn't, because you're ignorant about the case.  But Frazier did.  And by that, I mean Buell Frazier.  Not that "other Frazier" who you think interrogated him.

I know Fritz interrogated (and threatened) Buell.
What makes you think I don't know that.
 
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkYn5q7f/fritz-interview-buell.png)

Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 29, 2021, 06:30:16 AM
It is to entertain your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands".  If it was a 38-inch package that wasn't visible above Oswald's shoulder.

your silly fantasy of "some of it sticking out in front of his hands"
>> That's Buell's quote, so stop trying to make it look like I said that, L'll Tex.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 29, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I know Fritz interrogated (and threatened) Buell.
What makes you think I don't know that.
 
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkYn5q7f/fritz-interview-buell.png)

Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

HUH??    I can't understand you?....  Would you please explain WHY Lee would want to hide the paper sack from Buell Frazier's view?   Frazier had seen the sack when he climbed into the drivers seat of his car, and he saw Lee take the sack out of the car when Lee got out to walk to the TSBD.    Since Frazier knew that Lee was carrying a paper sack.....WHY would Lee want to carry it in a manner that you believe was meant to hide it from  Frazier's view.

 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 29, 2021, 03:22:55 PM
Just more contrarian rabbit hole nonsense.  There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.  All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.  There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.  Frazier sees Oswald take it with him from the car and walk toward the building.  Frazier is following him and sees Oswald go in the door.  At no point does Frazier see Oswald discard his package (and why would he do that if it had his lunch, curtain rods or whatever he might be carrying in the opinion of these loons?).  Nor does Frazier come across any discarded package even though he is just a few seconds behind Oswald in walking the same route to the building and entering by the same door.  This kind of laughable, pedantic analysis of a simple event is absurd.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 29, 2021, 04:43:55 PM
Just more contrarian rabbit hole nonsense.  There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.  All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.  There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.  Frazier sees Oswald take it with him from the car and walk toward the building.  Frazier is following him and sees Oswald go in the door.  At no point does Frazier see Oswald discard his package (and why would he do that if it had his lunch, curtain rods or whatever he might be carrying in the opinion of these loons?).  Nor does Frazier come across any discarded package even though he is just a few seconds behind Oswald in walking the same route to the building and entering by the same door.  This kind of laughable, pedantic analysis of a simple event is absurd.

For somebody who is complaining about "laughable, pedantic analysis" you sure as hell are using a massive amount of speculation about what Frazier might or might not have seen.

There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.

But there is plenty of doubt about the size of the package.

All the pedantic angst about how he carried it is classic contrarian nonsense in a desperate attempt to raise false doubt.

It is in fact crucial, because if the package was concealing a broken down rifle and Oswald carried it as Frazier said he did, the package would have reached over Oswald's shoulder and the end would be next to his ear. So, the only ones who are trying to create doubt about what Frazier said are the LNs, who claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the package protruded outward

There is no doubt that Oswald had the package.  And that is all that matters.

To simpletons like you, maybe...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 29, 2021, 05:20:51 PM
Now tell us why the top of the bag carried by Oswald would have to be seen poking over the shoulder, rather than angled over (using his left hand) to a position a few inches in front of his face and out of sight from Buell.

HUH??    I can't understand you?....  Would you please explain WHY Lee would want to hide the paper sack from Buell Frazier's view?   Frazier had seen the sack when he climbed into the drivers seat of his car, and he saw Lee take the sack out of the car when Lee got out to walk to the TSBD.    Since Frazier knew that Lee was carrying a paper sack.....WHY would Lee want to carry it in a manner that you believe was meant to hide it from  Frazier's view.

That's a good point. But only if Oswald was indeed carrying said curtain rods, and not a broken-down Carcano. Oswald's behaviour, and the angles available in carrying a 34.8" package in a manner required to fool an onlooker walking behind and at a distance, favours the latter.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 29, 2021, 05:50:41 PM
That's a good point. But only if Oswald was indeed carrying said curtain rods, and not a broken-down Carcano. Oswald's behaviour, and the angles available in carrying a 34.8" package in a manner required to fool an onlooker walking behind and at a distance, favours the latter.

That's a good point. But only if Oswald was indeed carrying said curtain rods, and not a broken-down Carcano.

Buell Frazier swore that the flimsy paper sack that he saw was only "about two feet long, give or take a couple of inches"

So are you now arguing with the man who actually saw the paper sack?   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 29, 2021, 05:53:44 PM
That's a good point. But only if Oswald was indeed carrying said curtain rods, and not a broken-down Carcano. Oswald's behaviour, and the angles available in carrying a 34.8" package in a manner required to fool an onlooker walking behind and at a distance, favours the latter.

Hilarious. It only favors the latter if you assume there was a broken down rifle in the package. The problem is that you don't get to assume that. You need to prove it.... you know; provide actual evidence and not just speculation.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 29, 2021, 09:19:37 PM
Hilarious. It only favors the latter if you assume there was a broken down rifle in the package. The problem is that you don't get to assume that. You need to prove it.... you know; provide actual evidence and not just speculation.

Have you tested what I'm suggesting?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 29, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
Have you tested what I'm suggesting?

Must have missed you suggestion. What was it?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 29, 2021, 11:23:09 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/7a/KVyz1V3h_o.jpg)
VERSUS
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f8/60/vWa0fiSQ_o.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 30, 2021, 04:31:34 AM
Hilarious. It only favors the latter if you assume there was a broken down rifle in the package. The problem is that you don't get to assume that. You need to prove it.... you know; provide actual evidence and not just speculation.

One assumes there were curtain rods in the bag. Buell did.
Oswald told him, so it must be true.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 30, 2021, 05:18:24 AM
Must have missed you suggestion. What was it?

It's a feasibility study involving Oswald using his left hand to pull the top of the bag to his left—in front of his head— to reduce the bag profile to anyone behind him. Kind of like carrying the bag at his side earlier when nobody was behind him.   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 30, 2021, 07:32:08 AM
One assumes there were curtain rods in the bag. Buell did.
Oswald told him, so it must be true.

It doesn't matter what one assumes was in the bag, nor does it matter what Oswald told Frazier.

The bag is only significant to the case if it was used to conceal a broken down MC rifle and, beyond speculation, there is no evidence for that.

It's a feasibility study involving Oswald using his left hand to pull the top of the bag to his left—in front of his head— to reduce the bag profile to anyone behind him. Kind of like carrying the bag at his side earlier when nobody was behind him.   

Oswald had no reason to "reduce the bag profile to anyone behind him". The only person behind him was Frazier and he had seen the package (and thus it's size) well before their arrival at the TSBD.

Frazier told us how Oswald carried the bag and there is no way that he could have carried a bag containing a broken down rifle in that way.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 30, 2021, 04:21:18 PM
In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 30, 2021, 04:45:58 PM
In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

I don't know what transpired in Frazier's car that rainy morning.... But I do know that Buell is on record as identifying the brown paper from which the sack was constructed as "FLIMSY light weight paper"....   So, Based on that information, I believe it's highly probable that the sack was starting to deteriorate when Lee placed it on the seat of Fraziers car..... Thus when Lee retrieved the wet sack from Frazier's car he placed it in the palm of his hand and tucked it beneath his arm to protect it from the rain.   But by the time he reached the TSBd the sack was falling apart, so he simply put his sandwich and apple in his jacket pocket and tossed the wet sack aside.
 
Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 30, 2021, 05:07:04 PM
In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Said the guy who, for complete lack of knowledge, only speculates, provides no evidence to prove anything, and lacks any credibility to be believed on anything.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.


Which all favors the package being too short to conceal a broken down MC rifle, exactly as Buell Frazier is still saying to this day and nobody has even come close to prove him wrong.

I bet you can't even explain how any of this can justify the conclusion that the bag was really long enough to conceal the MC rifle.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Sure. The bag can be reduced in size, but a rifle can't.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 30, 2021, 09:24:49 PM
In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Why are you attacking Tony Fratini.....  He hasn't posted anything in a couple of years.....But when he posted,  a reader could accept nearly anything he posted, as factual information.   You Mr Chapped man are the antithesis of Toni Fratini....  I know of no one who accepts anything that you post.   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 30, 2021, 11:53:19 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/7a/KVyz1V3h_o.jpg)
VERSUS
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f8/60/vWa0fiSQ_o.jpg)

 :D

Once again one is struck by the downright uncanny similarity between the size estimate given by Mr Frazier and his sister (27 inches) and the length of the curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage (27.5 inches). Curtain rods come in lots of different sizes, yet Mr Frazier and his sister managed to get this just right. No fluke!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 02:15:29 AM
Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Why are you attacking Tony Fratini.....  He hasn't posted anything in a couple of years.....But when he posted,  a reader could accept nearly anything he posted, as factual information.   You Mr Chapped man are the antithesis of Toni Fratini....  I know of no one who accepts anything that you post.

I'm not attacking Fratini, merely pointing out where he used the photos of the bag which showed the bag empty and flattened on the table, unfolded. BTW, he and I exchanged a number of PMs and I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 31, 2021, 03:28:00 AM
I'm not attacking Fratini, merely pointing out where he used the photos of the bag which showed the bag empty and flattened on the table, unfolded. BTW, he and I exchanged a number of PMs and I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

I too exchanged private PMs with Tony....   But when he suddenly stopped posting, I was concerned that his health was failing, but I didn't want to pry.  Can you shed any light on what happened to Tony?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 06:07:41 AM
I know why he was there in the first place and why he left.

I too exchanged private PMs with Tony....   But when he suddenly stopped posting, I was concerned that his health was failing, but I didn't want to pry.  Can you shed any light on what happened to Tony?

He originally said he was here to distract himself because his "dear wife" had passed a few months earlier.
When I noticed him gone, I figured he had healed enough to not need his days here as an emotional crutch any longer.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 10:07:19 AM
In CT Wonderland nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Said the guy who, for complete lack of knowledge, only speculates, provides no evidence to prove anything, and lacks any credibility to be believed on anything.

In the meantime:

1) Buell kept repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
2) Buell testified to not seeing the bag from the front while being carried by Oswald
3) Buell testified to the bag being folded top & bottom while on the back seat.
4) Buell testified that he wouldn't be able to tell (from his vantage point) if the package was protruding out front or not.


Which all favors the package being too short to conceal a broken down MC rifle, exactly as Buell Frazier is still saying to this day and nobody has even come close to prove him wrong.

I bet you can't even explain how any of this can justify the conclusion that the bag was really long enough to conceal the MC rifle.

Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Sure. The bag can be reduced in size, but a rifle can't.

Ha! The rifle can be reduced to 34.8" and is the only size of the 24/27.5/34.8 sizes that comes close to Randle's 'almost touching the ground' statement. And Randle's estimates kept shrinking (from 3 feet) as did Buell's nut sack as it became evermore clear to the pair of them (after the physical threats by Fritz in the interview) woke them both up to the real gravity and seriousness of the situation they were involved in. You think the cops were about to buy anything about Oswald and Buell just being friends and merely car-pooling? Ha!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2021, 12:25:58 PM
Ha! The rifle can be reduced to 34.8" and is the only size of the 24/27.5/34.8 sizes that comes close to Randle's 'almost touching the ground' statement. And Randle's estimates kept shrinking (from 3 feet) as did Buell's nut sack as it became evermore clear to the pair of them (after the physical threats by Fritz in the interview) woke them both up to the real gravity and seriousness of the situation they were involved in. You think the cops were about to buy anything about Oswald and Buell just being friends and merely car-pooling? Ha!

Total BS. It's somewhat pathetic that you desperately want to cling to one vague description by Randle while at the same time ignoring the fact that Buell Frazier not only had a far better view of the package but also describes perfectly how he saw Oswald carry the package (in the cup of his hand and under the shoulder) as well as the - for you - devastating fact that on Friday evening, only hours after the event, Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the paper bag "found" at the TSBD and he instantly dismissed it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry, causing a massive panic at the DPD with Lt Day struggling to come up with a completely bogus 2 bag theory and Fritz trying to pressure Frazier to sign a pre-written confession.

The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle concealed in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning. There never was any such evidence and, regardless of your speculation, there never will be.

What is it that prevents you from understanding that some paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, by itself, is of no relevance whatsoever, unless it can be demonstrated that that bag actually ever contained a broken down MC rifle. Without that, all you've got is an insignificant piece of paper, allegedly found at a location (without a in situ photo to prove it) by somebody (nobody knows exactly who, as there are several claims made about that) and massive speculation.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 04:22:11 PM
Sounds to me that the spread-out version of the bag that you CSI brainiacs try to palm off as the carrying profile (To wit: Tony Fratini) is in fact fully capable of being easily reduced in real time.

Why are you attacking Tony Fratini.....  He hasn't posted anything in a couple of years.....But when he posted,  a reader could accept nearly anything he posted, as factual information.   You Mr Chapped man are the antithesis of Toni Fratini....  I know of no one who accepts anything that you post.

It doesn't matter to me who accepts what I post. And you're the guy with the bucket-full of fabrication-charges levelled against you.. and by none other than a prominent member of your own species, no less.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on January 31, 2021, 05:26:47 PM
Total BS. It's somewhat pathetic that you desperately want to cling to one vague description by Randle while at the same time ignoring the fact that Buell Frazier not only had a far better view of the package but also describes perfectly how he saw Oswald carry the package (in the cup of his hand and under the shoulder) as well as the - for you - devastating fact that on Friday evening, only hours after the event, Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the paper bag "found" at the TSBD and he instantly dismissed it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry, causing a massive panic at the DPD with Lt Day struggling to come up with a completely bogus 2 bag theory and Fritz trying to pressure Frazier to sign a pre-written confession.

The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle concealed in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning. There never was any such evidence and, regardless of your speculation, there never will be.

What is it that prevents you from understanding that some paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, by itself, is of no relevance whatsoever, unless it can be demonstrated that that bag actually ever contained a broken down MC rifle. Without that, all you've got is an insignificant piece of paper, allegedly found at a location (without a in situ photo to prove it) by somebody (nobody knows exactly who, as there are several claims made about that) and massive speculation.

So much bad luck for Old Lee.  He carries his lunch in a bag over two feet long, tells nosy Frazier it is curtain rods, a long bag is found right next to the SN with Oswald's prints on it, it can't be accounted for in other way, Oswald's rifle is also found on that floor with the same serial number as the one sent to his PO box by Klein's, he knocks off early for a movie, decides to get his pistol, is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD and pass the scene of the Tippit murder, and he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that multiple witnesses identify him, and he decides to sneak into a movie instead of buying a ticke, and instead of waiting to see what the police want he decides to punch them and then he has the same two brands of ammo as used at the Tippit scene.  Not a shred of evidence!  You should be ashamed.  You lose are credibility when you make outrageous claims like that.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Not-to-mention that poor little angel Oswald was the only person on Planet Earth who was on scene & accounted for during both murders.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 31, 2021, 06:43:00 PM
It doesn't matter to me who accepts what I post. And you're the guy with the bucket-full of fabrication-charges levelled against you.. and by none other than a prominent member of your own species, no less.

Some folks simply don't understand that proposing a theory about how an event happened, and then working with the evidence and eyewitness accounts, to prove or disprove that theory is SOP in solving crimes.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2021, 06:48:17 PM
So much bad luck for Old Lee.  He carries his lunch in a bag over two feet long, tells nosy Frazier it is curtain rods, a long bag is found right next to the SN with Oswald's prints on it, it can't be accounted for in other way, Oswald's rifle is also found on that floor with the same serial number as the one sent to his PO box by Klein's, he knocks off early for a movie, decides to get his pistol, is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD and pass the scene of the Tippit murder, and he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that multiple witnesses identify him, and he decides to sneak into a movie instead of buying a ticke, and instead of waiting to see what the police want he decides to punch them and then he has the same two brands of ammo as used at the Tippit scene.  Not a shred of evidence!  You should be ashamed.  You lose are credibility when you make outrageous claims like that.

Not a shred of evidence! You should be ashamed.

Really? What evidence, in the JFK murder, other than a MC rifle - that can be tentatively linked to Oswald - is there?

Everything else you have presented is a concocted narrative based on mere speculation and assumptions and none of it comes even remotely close to being evidence of the MC rifle having been in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning.

Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President", your "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK", is also the "reasoning" of a 5 year old with brain damage.
 
As per usual you present an extremely weak circumstantial case, based on highly questionable information, misrepresentations of the evidence and false claims, to reach a flawed predetermined conclusion, which you subsequently use to argue that the MC rifle must have been in the bag, because in your limited brain capacity there is no room for alternative explanations. That's not evidence.... it's wishful thinking....A fairytale from la la land.

With enough assumptions and speculations, while ignoring the implications of the actual evidence, you can always come to the conclusion you want to reach. With enough assumptions and speculations I can easily make the case that your father paid for the killing of JFK to punish your mother for not having an abortion and leaving us stuck with you. Now, that would be a defense!

The bottom line, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, is that the only piece of physical evidence there is, is the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. That's it! You can not place that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, nor can you place it in the bag Frazier saw. You can't even prove that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63 nor can you place Oswald conclusively on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM and you have no plausible explanation for how he ended up in the 2nd floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the last shot or how he could have come down the stairs without being seen by Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2021, 06:49:43 PM
Not-to-mention that poor little angel Oswald was the only person on Planet Earth who was on scene & accounted for during both murders.

Your conclusion notwithstanding, it still remains to be seen if that's even true.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 09:04:27 PM
Total BS. It's somewhat pathetic that you desperately want to cling to one vague description by Randle while at the same time ignoring the fact that Buell Frazier not only had a far better view of the package but also describes perfectly how he saw Oswald carry the package (in the cup of his hand and under the shoulder) as well as the - for you - devastating fact that on Friday evening, only hours after the event, Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the paper bag "found" at the TSBD and he instantly dismissed it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry, causing a massive panic at the DPD with Lt Day struggling to come up with a completely bogus 2 bag theory and Fritz trying to pressure Frazier to sign a pre-written confession.

The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle concealed in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning. There never was any such evidence and, regardless of your speculation, there never will be.

What is it that prevents you from understanding that some paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, by itself, is of no relevance whatsoever, unless it can be demonstrated that that bag actually ever contained a broken down MC rifle. Without that, all you've got is an insignificant piece of paper, allegedly found at a location (without a in situ photo to prove it) by somebody (nobody knows exactly who, as there are several claims made about that) and massive speculation.

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Here. I have this model Bullworker (since I was a kid) and it measures exactly 34.6", close enough to the claimed 34.8" for accuracy. Also 8" wide Starbucks bags can be combined to mimic the bag. (Buell claimed the bag was only 5-6" wide, but I'll show some largesse by handicapping that). Get an accurate tool.. and some exercise as well.

And no that's not me in the photo.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bnp0NkJb/original-bullworker.jpg)

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 31, 2021, 09:32:45 PM
Some folks simply don't understand that proposing a theory about how an event happened, and then working with the evidence and eyewitness accounts, to prove or disprove that theory is SOP in solving crimes.

That's not the way you couch it. That's why Iacoletti owns you.

I will note, however, that at times you do sound reasonable.
But that's only when you're in your LNer mode
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2021, 11:36:07 PM
Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Here. I have this model Bullworker (since I was a kid) and it measures exactly 34.6", close enough to the claimed 34.8" for accuracy. Also 8" wide Starbucks bags can be combined to mimic the bag. (Buell claimed the bag was only 5-6" wide, but I'll show some largesse by handicapping that). Get an accurate tool.. and some exercise as well.

And no that's not me in the photo.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bnp0NkJb/original-bullworker.jpg)

Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

That's not how it works, spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains! It doesn't matter one bit if a broken down rifle could be carried protruding outward in such a way that somebody behind could not see it. Of course it could. But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!

Frazier described the package, as being too short to conceal a broken down rifle, and he told us exactly how he saw Oswald carry it. If you want to claim that the package was long enough to conceal a broken down rifle and that it was carried in a way that Frazier, standing behind Oswald, could not see it, you need to prove it.

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us all the evidence for your infantile claim or STFU and stop wasting everybody's time!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on January 31, 2021, 11:59:44 PM
Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

Ditch the word salad, Mr Chapman, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that the 15th of the month comes AFTER the 23rd of the month, and the 24th of the month comes BEFORE the 23rd of the month--------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 05:50:21 AM
Ditch the word salad, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that a rifle broken down to 34.8" size couldn't have been carried in front of Frazier and go unnoticed for the most part.

That's not how it works, spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains! It doesn't matter one bit if a broken down rifle could be carried protruding outward in such a way that somebody behind could not see it. Of course it could. But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!

Frazier described the package, as being too short to conceal a broken down rifle, and he told us exactly how he saw Oswald carry it. If you want to claim that the package was long enough to conceal a broken down rifle and that it was carried in a way that Frazier, standing behind Oswald, could not see it, you need to prove it.

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us all the evidence for your infantile claim or STFU and stop wasting everybody's time!

But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 06:01:05 AM
Ditch the word salad, Mr Chapman, put your money where your mouth is, and prove that the 15th of the month comes AFTER the 23rd of the month, and the 24th of the month comes BEFORE the 23rd of the month--------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

 Thumb1:

You've bailed I see. Not so confident in Meros now?
I guess you've finally read Buell's wc testimony
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 06:45:38 AM
But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?

If that wasn't the reason for bringing it up, why bring it up at all?

I'm glad you agree. I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it. So, that's the "Oswald brought the MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag" theory out the window  Thumb1:

Btw I hope this is not too much word salad for you to handle.... What exactly is the cut off point where you start to struggle with the content? 10 words perhaps, or is it a few more? Just let me know, and I'll see if I can help.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 02:26:57 PM
Your conclusion notwithstanding, it still remains to be seen if that's even true.

Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2021, 02:30:48 PM
Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.

Yer FOS Chappie....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 02:49:43 PM
Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.

Really?   :D

It also remains to be seen if that's even true.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 01, 2021, 04:01:37 PM
Not a shred of evidence! You should be ashamed.

Really? What evidence, in the JFK murder, other than a MC rifle - that can be tentatively linked to Oswald - is there?

Everything else you have presented is a concocted narrative based on mere speculation and assumptions and none of it comes even remotely close to being evidence of the MC rifle having been in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning.

Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President", your "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK", is also the "reasoning" of a 5 year old with brain damage.
 
As per usual you present an extremely weak circumstantial case, based on highly questionable information, misrepresentations of the evidence and false claims, to reach a flawed predetermined conclusion, which you subsequently use to argue that the MC rifle must have been in the bag, because in your limited brain capacity there is no room for alternative explanations. That's not evidence.... it's wishful thinking....A fairytale from la la land.

With enough assumptions and speculations, while ignoring the implications of the actual evidence, you can always come to the conclusion you want to reach. With enough assumptions and speculations I can easily make the case that your father paid for the killing of JFK to punish your mother for not having an abortion and leaving us stuck with you. Now, that would be a defense!

The bottom line, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, is that the only piece of physical evidence there is, is the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. That's it! You can not place that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, nor can you place it in the bag Frazier saw. You can't even prove that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63 nor can you place Oswald conclusively on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM and you have no plausible explanation for how he ended up in the 2nd floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the last shot or how he could have come down the stairs without being seen by Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor.

What a bizarre and kooky response.  Imagine making a case for innocence to a jury when the murder weapon is found at the scene of a crime, it is linked via documents and serial number to an individual who works at that building, his wife confirms he owns a rifle, he has no alibi or explanation for the rifle's presence there, and even lies about owning a rifle even though there are recent pictures of him holding a rifle.  HA HA HA.   And he also flees the scene and is identified by multiple individuals as the person who murdered a police officer within an hour.  Wow.  And it is only "circumstantial"!  HA HA HA.  Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.  And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals.   It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 04:03:29 PM
Really?   :D

It also remains to be seen if that's even true.

In CT Wonderland, located on the far shores of the lunatic fringe, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2021, 04:58:53 PM
In CT Wonderland, located on the far shores of the lunatic fringe, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Pssst Chappie.... Extract your head and pay attention.....

I'll present just one item that refutes your statement that "nothing is provable"......

It's very easy to prove that Lee Oswald could not have reached across the wide gap ( about 5 feet) and placed the carcano on the floor ( about four feet down ) from the aisle a the top of the stairs in the NW corner of the 6th floor.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 05:20:09 PM
Not a shred of evidence! You should be ashamed.

Really? What evidence, in the JFK murder, other than a MC rifle - that can be tentatively linked to Oswald - is there?

Everything else you have presented is a concocted narrative based on mere speculation and assumptions and none of it comes even remotely close to being evidence of the MC rifle having been in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning.

Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President", your "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK", is also the "reasoning" of a 5 year old with brain damage.
 
As per usual you present an extremely weak circumstantial case, based on highly questionable information, misrepresentations of the evidence and false claims, to reach a flawed predetermined conclusion, which you subsequently use to argue that the MC rifle must have been in the bag, because in your limited brain capacity there is no room for alternative explanations. That's not evidence.... it's wishful thinking....A fairytale from la la land.

With enough assumptions and speculations, while ignoring the implications of the actual evidence, you can always come to the conclusion you want to reach. With enough assumptions and speculations I can easily make the case that your father paid for the killing of JFK to punish your mother for not having an abortion and leaving us stuck with you. Now, that would be a defense!

The bottom line, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, is that the only piece of physical evidence there is, is the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. That's it! You can not place that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, nor can you place it in the bag Frazier saw. You can't even prove that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63 nor can you place Oswald conclusively on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM and you have no plausible explanation for how he ended up in the 2nd floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the last shot or how he could have come down the stairs without being seen by Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor.

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work. Then either Oswald had a pancake for lunch or he didn't see the bag carried from the front, as he said in testimony.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please. And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 05:39:13 PM
In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Pssst Chappie.... Extract your head and pay attention.....

I'll present just one item that refutes your statement that "nothing is provable"......

It's very easy to prove that Lee Oswald could not have reached across the wide gap ( about 5 feet) and placed the carcano on the floor ( about four feet down ) from the aisle a the top of the stairs in the NW corner of the 6th floor.

You must be in your LNer mode: If you believe things are provable, then I guess you don't reside on the far shores of the lunatic fringe after all.  ;)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2021, 05:46:48 PM
You must be in your LNer mode: If you believe things are provable, then I guess you don't reside on the far shores of the lunatic fringe after all.  ;)

Not so fast ......Chappie.     I said I wanted to prove that Lee Oswald was NOT GUILTY by PROVING that he could NOT have placed the carcano on the floor where two DPD detectives verified (with precise maps ) that it was located before anybody touched it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 01, 2021, 06:21:49 PM
There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work. Then either Oswald had a pancake for lunch or he didn't see the bag carried from the front, as he said in testimony.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please. And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"
Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 01, 2021, 08:25:20 PM
Not so fast ......Chappie.     I said I wanted to prove that Lee Oswald was NOT GUILTY by PROVING that he could NOT have placed the carcano on the floor where two DPD detectives verified (with precise maps ) that it was located before anybody touched it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY

Not so fast, Waldo. You have yet to thank me for providing you with information about Tony Fratini.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 01, 2021, 09:07:25 PM
You've bailed I see. Not so confident in Meros now?
I guess you've finally read Buell's wc testimony

You've got the wrong guy completely, Mr Chapman. Apology accepted!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 01, 2021, 09:11:03 PM
Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

Ah, Mr Galbraith, the very man! How do you-----------with your much-vaunted rational approach to the evidence------------account for the information and dates on this document?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Cordial request: please do NOT run away from this like you did before!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2021, 09:55:29 PM
Not so fast, Waldo. You have yet to thank me for providing you with information about Tony Fratini.

Ok,  Mr Ego, Thanks for the info.....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2021, 01:02:15 AM
You must be in your LNer mode: If you believe things are provable, then I guess you don't reside on the far shores of the lunatic fringe after all.  ;)

No,Chappie.... I'm not in a LNer mode....  I'm in the mode I'm always in....An open minded researcher.

However... I'll confess that I am heavily biased in my belief that Lee Oswald was screwed by the government, the police, and the press.  Because the evidence indicates to me that the official US government created and approved tale is utterly ridiculous, and only a simple minded fool would accept it as the truth.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 02, 2021, 01:36:04 AM
I don’t see why just 2 curtain rods would have been in a 8”x 34” paper bag constructed with tape , not why the rods would be left behind in the TSBD absent the bag

Nor why just 2 rods would have even been considered important if randomly found by a TSBD employee

This is why I have speculated that Oswald may have taken an entire SET of Rods AND blinds (rolled up) and actually in  the original mailing package bag on the shelf in Paines garage. ( Mrs Paine I think mentioned having mail ordered this set of blinds)
address of Paines residence on this package would be significant.

Now if THIS package was discovered by some TSBD employee  then it makes sense WHY such object would be significant enough to report and once it became apparent to some dedicated WC theory authority  , this bag negated official WC theory, that the bag HAD to be returned to Paines garage before Mrs Paine became aware the package was missing

Question though, who would be so dedicated to the official LN theory that they would willingly attempt to suppress or confuse evidence? I mean besides, Will Fritz (shells tossed and boxes moved, Lt Day, (the “palm print”)and Mr. Belin( Dorothy Garner who?)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2021, 01:39:34 AM
I don’t see why just 2 curtain rods would have been in a 8”x 34” paper bag constructed with tape , not why the rods would be left behind in the TSBD absent the bag

Nor why just 2 rods would have even been considered important if randomly found by a TSBD employee

This is why I have speculated that Oswald may have taken an entire SET of Rods AND blinds (rolled up) and actually in  the original mailing package bag on the shelf in Paines garage. ( Mrs Paine I think mentioned having mail ordered this set of blinds)
address of Paines residence on this package would be significant.

Now if THIS package was discovered by some TSBD employee  then it makes sense WHY such object would be significant enough to report and once it became apparent to some dedicated WC theory authority  , this bag negated official WC theory, that the bag HAD to be returned to Paines garage before Mrs Paine became aware the package was missing

Question though, who would be so dedicated to the official LN theory that they would willingly attempt to suppress or confuse evidence? I mean besides, Will Fritz (shells tossed and boxes moved, Lt Day, (the “palm print”)and Mr. Belin( Dorothy Garner who?)

Pretty soon Oswald will have taken a sofa and bed to work.  Maybe take it up with Old Lee.  He denied taking any curtain rods to work that morning.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 01:56:16 AM
The date of release is different from one version to the other, but the time of release is exactly the same (7:50 a.m.). Amazing!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 02, 2021, 02:23:36 AM
It’s really depressing to me that somebody would not dare to speak if having found these rods (and possibly a bag ) a month later   If there was significance in that finding that definitely proves Oswald took those from the Paines garage on Friday morning Nov 22/63
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 02:43:41 AM
The date of release is different from one version to the other, but the time of release is exactly the same (7:50 a.m.). Amazing!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)

I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s). The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.
I have absolutely no idea why this would happen or what purpose it serves. Why pretend they were found in the TSBD? This only strengthens Oswald's claims. Why then demonstrate Oswald's prints were not on the rods? To make it look like there were rods in the TSBD but they weren't Oswalds? What's the point of that? Was the bag found on the 6th floor supposed to be the bag he brought the curtain rods in? WTF is going on?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2021, 03:02:19 AM
I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s). The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.
I have absolutely no idea why this would happen or what purpose it serves. Why pretend they were found in the TSBD? This only strengthens Oswald's claims. Why then demonstrate Oswald's prints were not on the rods? To make it look like there were rods in the TSBD but they weren't Oswalds? What's the point of that? Was the bag found on the 6th floor supposed to be the bag he brought the curtain rods in? WTF is going on?

WTF is going on?

I'm glad that I'm not alone in being lost in a fog?  What the hell is all of  this BS?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 06:00:00 AM
What a bizarre and kooky response.  Imagine making a case for innocence to a jury when the murder weapon is found at the scene of a crime, it is linked via documents and serial number to an individual who works at that building, his wife confirms he owns a rifle, he has no alibi or explanation for the rifle's presence there, and even lies about owning a rifle even though there are recent pictures of him holding a rifle.  HA HA HA.   And he also flees the scene and is identified by multiple individuals as the person who murdered a police officer within an hour.  Wow.  And it is only "circumstantial"!  HA HA HA.  Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.  And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals.   It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do not know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 06:06:22 AM
There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work. Then either Oswald had a pancake for lunch or he didn't see the bag carried from the front, as he said in testimony.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please. And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There doesn't have to be. I have told you this before and I'll say it again; the paper bag is of no significance to the case if it did not contain the broken down MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD. It really is as simple as that.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please.

It's one of his "53 pieces of evidence that convict Oswald". Look it up.. it's easy enough to find

And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

Reply # 148

"Richard Smith" tells us that "he knocks off early for a movie" is part of the "evidence" that shows he killed JFK
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 06:23:26 AM
Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

Or, see what they do? They take all sorts of innocent and explainable events, give them a different interpretation and lumb them together in a narrative that makes it look as if the suspect was up to no good.

That's the beauty of circumstantial evidence. With enough malice and imagination you can twist and turn even benign events, like leaving a wedding ring behind, into evidence of murder. It's what prosecutors do every day of the week!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 06:24:40 AM
Not so fast, Waldo. You have yet to thank me for providing you with information about Tony Fratini.

Do you think Tony Fratini will thank you for sharing his private information on a public forum?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 02, 2021, 08:23:32 AM
There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There doesn't have to be. I have told you this before and I'll say it again; the paper bag is of no significance to the case if it did not contain the broken down MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD. It really is as simple as that.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please.

It's one of his "53 pieces of evidence that convict Oswald". Look it up.. it's easy enough to find

And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

Reply # 148

"Richard Smith" tells us that "he knocks off early for a movie" is part of the "evidence" that shows he killed JFK

Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 09:20:32 AM
It’s really depressing to me that somebody would not dare to speak if having found these rods (and possibly a bag ) a month later   If there was significance in that finding that definitely proves Oswald took those from the Paines garage on Friday morning Nov 22/63

I believe a copy of the original form (release date 3/24) was shown to whoever found the curtain rods at the Depository as 'proof' that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and there was nothing to see here.

This document renders unsafe the LNer claim that 'No curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD therefore LHO lied to Wesley Frazier about what was in the bag'.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 09:37:59 AM
I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s).

Yes

Quote
The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day

Not sure this was alteration as such, Mr O'Meara.

This is what a BW copy of the form must have looked like after the rods had been submitted & tested, but before they had been released-------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/72/80/nB9ddMrC_o.jpg)

Lt. Day added a 3/24/64 signout to the original and a 3/26/64 signout to the copy

Quote
and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.

I don't think the submission date is fake. What's fake is the elaborate 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage 3/23 and the contrived marking of them as Exhibits 275 & 276. The WC on-the-record visit to the Paine garage only took place BECAUSE two curtain rods had shown up elsewhere---------two curtain rods that, because of where they were found, needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.

Sticks and stones.... Hardly surprising, if he is, because absent sound arguments and/or persuasive evidence, mocking is just about the only thing you LN clowns have got.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying.

Who says I was quoting him verbatim? Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2021, 03:35:00 PM
Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do no know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment. :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2021, 05:13:01 PM
Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do not know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

Prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence?  LOL.  Time to consult with Roger Collins again since your ignorance of the law and evidence is profound.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 06:44:06 PM
Not sure this was alteration as such, Mr O'Meara.

This is what a BW copy of the form must have looked like after the rods had been submitted & tested, but before they had been released-------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/72/80/nB9ddMrC_o.jpg)

Lt. Day added a 3/24/64 signout to the original and a 3/26/64 signout to the copy

I phrased it poorly.
Day has clearly altered the sign-out date between the two copies. Whatever the interpretation given to these documents this aspect of it cannot be denied. When arguments are put forward about 'following the evidence' the counter-argument is that it's not possible as the evidence is either lost/destroyed (as with the lunch remains and bottle of soda found by the SN) or the processing of the evidence is corrupt (as in this example of the differing documents). There is no reason to trust any of the information in these documents as we can see alterations have already taken place - the submission date is suspect as is the notion any test was even carried out.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)

When I look at the top copy it appears to me that all the red writing has been done at the same time. The two documents must have been separated before Howlett put his second signature on the top copy as it doesn't appear on the bottom copy. Day then filled in the rest of the information on the bottom copy changing the sign-out date. How can this be explained other than corrupt practices?

Quote
I don't think the submission date is fake. What's fake is the elaborate 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage 3/23 and the contrived marking of them as Exhibits 275 & 276. The WC on-the-record visit to the Paine garage only took place BECAUSE two curtain rods had shown up elsewhere---------two curtain rods that, because of where they were found, needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints

A weakness in the scenario you propose is the reason for the top copy:

"I believe a copy of the original form (release date 3/24) was shown to whoever found the curtain rods at the Depository as 'proof' that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and there was nothing to see here."

I would be very surprised indeed if the DPD felt it had to justify itself to some member of the public. I would imagine anyone finding the rods would be taken in and grilled about every single detail of the discovery. The DPD didn't need to make a fake copy to impress someone off the street.
I totally agree that the testimony regarding the taking of the rods from the Paine house has an air of pantomime about it. Really over the top. And the thing that makes the least sense would be for the DPD to take the rods on the 23rd then pretend they had been found elsewhere over a week earlier.
But a lot of things don't make sense:
Why the change of sign-out date?
If the rods were discovered elsewhere why go to the trouble of putting them back in the Paine house then do the "pantomime of discovery"?
If they were first discovered in the Paine house, why pretend they were discovered earlier?

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Note the date-----------March 16..........
-----------the day AFTER two curtain rods are submitted to the DPD lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------a week BEFORE two curtain rods are formally taken from the Paine garage

(https://images2.imgbox.com/f9/03/gxe4qQ7k_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 02, 2021, 08:37:09 PM

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date. The modified document was pieced together and for some reason Day's comment and signature were re-positioned relative to one another. Certainly not on purpose, but it shows the effort that went into modifying the document to deceive. And why was a photocopy submitted into evidence instead of the original document? This is a very damning document that confirms the DPD's involvement as conspirators.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2021, 08:53:38 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date. The modified document was pieced together and for some reason Day's comment and signature were re-positioned relative to one another. Certainly not on purpose, but it shows the effort that went into modifying the document to deceive. And why was a photocopy submitted into evidence instead of the original document? This is a very damning document that confirms the DPD's involvement as conspirators.

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

There is ample evidence that the DPD railroaded Lee Oswald, and lynched him before he could expose them.   This document is a little icing on the cake.....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 02, 2021, 08:58:25 PM
Note the date-----------March 16..........
-----------the day AFTER two curtain rods are submitted to the DPD lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------a week BEFORE two curtain rods are formally taken from the Paine garage

(https://images2.imgbox.com/f9/03/gxe4qQ7k_o.jpg)

Yet another damning document that implicates the WC, Hoover and the FBI into the mix. Hoover had already recruited the DPD to manage all the evidence, including the curtain rod BS. Otherwise, the WC (Dulles), Hoover and Johnson knew way too much about Oswald and the evidence mere hours after the assassination.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 02, 2021, 09:02:38 PM
Do you think Tony Fratini will thank you for sharing his private information on a public forum?

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?
 :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 09:09:14 PM
Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?
 :D

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.


Bla bla bla... Tony apparently told you in a private message. If he wanted to have it all over the forum, he would have posted it himself.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?


Nice pivot...as to the latter part; If true - which it isn't - wouldn't you also need to be here 24/7 to notice? Ever thought about that before you made that pathetic comment, genius?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 09:25:20 PM
I would be very surprised indeed if the DPD felt it had to justify itself to some member of the public. I would imagine anyone finding the rods would be taken in and grilled about every single detail of the discovery. The DPD didn't need to make a fake copy to impress someone off the street.

Well, we're not talking about some member of the public/someone off the street but a Depository employee. Tricky business.
 
Quote
I totally agree that the testimony regarding the taking of the rods from the Paine house has an air of pantomime about it. Really over the top. And the thing that makes the least sense would be for the DPD to take the rods on the 23rd then pretend they had been found elsewhere over a week earlier.

Agreed on all counts!

Quote
But a lot of things don't make sense:
Why the change of sign-out date?

My working hypothesis is that there were two sets of curtain rods, one set found in the Depository, the other taken from the Paine garage. The latter set were tested on 11/25-----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/14/1XKx5ddK_o.jpg)

The original document (with release date 3/24) was not made public (and only came to light in the 1990s!)

Quote
If the rods were discovered elsewhere why go to the trouble of putting them back in the Paine house then do the "pantomime of discovery"?

Again, they weren't put back for Ms Paine's in situ deposition (the release date of 3/24 is too late for that). The rods found at the Depository (which were marked with the digits 275 & 276) were 'disappeared' into the rods taken from the Paine garage (which--------in a blatant contrivance--------were 'marked' as Exhibits 275 & 276). Those numbers are a real giveaway.

Quote
If they were first discovered in the Paine house, why pretend they were discovered earlier?

Again, I believe we are dealing two different sets of rods.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 09:28:47 PM
What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date.

I thought that too until Mr Colin Crow offered a smart explanation: the placement of the carbon paper underneath the original was not perfect
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 02, 2021, 09:36:25 PM


Who says I was quoting him verbatim?
The quotation marks around the sentence says you tried to make it look like you were indeed quoting him verbatim.

Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
That's not the argument. What you need to justify is in the way you phrased it.

Your quote: 'Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President"'
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 02, 2021, 09:51:54 PM
Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.


Bla bla bla... Tony apparently told you in a private message. If he wanted to have it all over the forum, he would have posted it himself.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?


Nice pivot...as to the latter part; If true - which it isn't - wouldn't you also need to be here 24/7 to notice? Ever thought about that before you made that pathetic comment, genius?

 ::)

My quote: "As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems"

You missed the it seems professor.
Sigh, guess I'll have to school you again: It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 09:56:34 PM
Well, we're not talking about some member of the public/someone off the street but a Depository employee. Tricky business.

An employee of the TSBD is just a member of the public but even if they're not, the DPD don't have to fake a document to impress an employee of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense. However...

Quote
My working hypothesis is that there were two sets of curtain rods, one set found in the Depository, the other taken from the Paine garage. The latter set were tested on 11/25-----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/14/1XKx5ddK_o.jpg)

The original document (with release date 3/24) was not made public (and only came to light in the 1990s!)

IMO this was to merge the rods found at the Depository (which were marked with the digits 275 & 276) with the rods taken from the Paine garage (which--------in a blatant contrivance--------were 'marked' as Exhibits 275 & 276). Those numbers are a real giveaway.

Again, I believe we are dealing two different sets of rods.

...this does make sense, to a large extent, but there's still a lot of uncertainty:

Why do two curtain rods come in four pieces?
Is there any other evidence that the rods were found in the TSBD other than Fraziers' mystery caller?
How is Rankin's letter to Hoover tied into this?
Why the change of release date by Day?

At the very least you've demonstrated corruption in the processing of evidence but it would be satisfying to have an interpretation of the various documents that didn't leave so many tricky questions.

PS: What is the latest doc you posted?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 10:03:20 PM
::)

My quote: "As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems"

You missed the it seems professor.
Sigh, guess I'll have to school you again: It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

Jumping to the wrong conclusion again, I see...

I never log out, so as long as my pc, or one of the others in the network, is running, you'll see my name in the list. Doesn't mean I'm actually there.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 10:08:31 PM
An employee of the TSBD is just a member of the public but even if they're not, the DPD don't have to fake a document to impress an employee of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense.

They're not trying to impress the employee but to show them documentary evidence that will satisfy them that the matter has been looked into and there's nothing to see here. This witness, if not satisfied, could go public and cause a MAJOR headache.

And I don't believe the original form is fake: it records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15, their testing negative for Mr Oswald's prints, and their release 3/24. They were never seen again.

Quote
However...

...this does make sense, to a large extent, but there's still a lot of uncertainty:

Why do two curtain rods come in four pieces?

Each rod extends out.

Quote
Is there any other evidence that the rods were found in the TSBD other than Fraziers' mystery caller?

The "Crime Scene Search Section" document is evidence. I can't think of any other location where the finding of two curtain rods would require testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

Quote
How is Rankin's letter to Hoover tied into this?

Panic at the highest levels over curtain rods at just the time two curtain rods are submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints!

Quote
Why the change of release date by Day?

So that the public version will have a release date post-3/25 (the date the Paine rods were tested)?

Quote
At the very least you've demonstrated corruption in the processing of evidence but it would be satisfying to have an interpretation of the various documents that didn't leave so many tricky questions.

PS: What is the latest doc you posted?

Lt. Day's print card for one of the rods
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 10:09:03 PM
It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

Jumping to the wrong conclusion again, I see...

I never log out, so as long as my pc, or one of the others in the network, is running, you'll see my name in the list. Doesn't mean I'm actually there.

How about you two find a room?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 10:11:07 PM

Who says I was quoting him verbatim?
The quotation marks around the sentence says you tried to make it look like you were indeed quoting him verbatim.

Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
That's not the argument. What you need to justify is in the way you phrased it.

Speech marks do not always signify a verbatim quote. The give away in this case was that part I atributed to "Richard", also using speech marks, when it was obvious that it was not verbatim but merely a way to distinguish from my own writing.

The way I phrased it was correct. Bugs did include the leaving behind of the wedding wring as one of the 53 pieces of evidence allegedly showing Oswald's guilt. And that was precisely the point I was making. I can't help it when your comprehension problems prevent you from understanding something so basic.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 10:12:12 PM
How about you two find a room?

No thanks... being with Chapman on the same forum is bad enough.

Look at it this way; I keep him occupied so he can't bother you with his BS
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 10:12:37 PM
Here's a clearer image of that doc

(https://i.postimg.cc/bwmch8Kw/1-XKx5dd-K-o-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/RWJb1rSk)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 10:18:03 PM
They're not trying to impress the employee but to show them documentary evidence that will satisfy them that the matter has been looked into and there's nothing to see here. This witness, if not satisfied, could go public and cause a MAJOR headache.

Each rod extends out.

The "Crime Scene Search Section" document is evidence. I can't think of any other location where the finding of two curtain rods would require testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

Panic at the highest levels over curtain rods at just the time two curtain rods are submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints!

So that the public version will have a release date post-3/25 (the date the Paine rods were tested)?

Lt. Day's print card for one of the rods

 Thumb1:

It's weird to see you making such sense.  ;)

Still not 100% about the creation of the top copy for the employee, feel sure there's more to it but can't come up with anything better at the minute.
Just for something to say - why do you think it took so long for the rods to come to light?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 10:25:17 PM
Thumb1:

It's weird to see you making such sense.  ;)

I have my moments, Mr O'Meara  ;)

Quote
Still not 100% about the creation of the top copy for the employee, feel sure there's more to it but can't come up with anything better at the minute.
Just for something to say - why do you think it took so long for the rods to come to light?

Good question! Maybe they were found at the bottom of an elevator shaft, or between some boxes, or... Alternatively, maybe they were found and handed over not long after the assassination and the pesky employee turned up again in March asking pesky questions about them ('I never heard back from you guys about those curtain rods I found').
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 10:26:33 PM
Ah, Mr Galbraith, the very man! How do you-----------with your much-vaunted rational approach to the evidence------------account for the information and dates on this document?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Cordial request: please do NOT run away from this like you did before!  Thumb1:

Bumped for Mr Galbraith!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 02, 2021, 10:33:26 PM
From Mr Pat Speer's superbly searching Chapter 16 on (amongst other things) the curtain rods (patspeer.com)------------

But then, on 8-31-64, Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin wrote a letter to FBI Director Hoover, asking him to have the FBI interview Roy Truly, Oswald's boss at the Texas School Book Depository, to see if anyone came across a package of curtain rods in the building.

Yes, strangely enough, months after the Warren Commission's staff had written a report claiming Oswald had lied when he told Buell Frazier the package he brought to work on 11-22-63 contained curtain rods, and months after the commissioners had signed off on this finding, it had finally occurred to someone that, hey, maybe, the package Oswald brought into the building DID contain curtain rods--and that, geez, before we conclude Oswald had lied about this, we should at least ask Roy Truly if he recalled anyone ever finding a package of curtain rods in the building.


Here's the interview report------------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/11/4c/MUYR5YKH_o.jpg)

Looks like the specter of curtain rods found at the Depository had not been banished by September. My favorite line: "...it would be customary for any discovery of curtain rods to immediately be called to his attention." Yes, we have a longstanding tradition here at the Texas School Book Depository that any employee finding curtain rods on the premises should report the fact to the building manager.  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 02, 2021, 11:00:36 PM
If that wasn't the reason for bringing it up, why bring it up at all?

I'm glad you agree. I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it. So, that's the "Oswald brought the MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag" theory out the window  Thumb1:

Btw I hope this is not too much word salad for you to handle.... What exactly is the cut off point where you start to struggle with the content? 10 words perhaps, or is it a few more? Just let me know, and I'll see if I can help.

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 02, 2021, 11:12:37 PM
Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 11:22:05 PM
Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag

Who said you needed to prove that? What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.

And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.

Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 02, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/eb/7qh0JqDs_o.gif)

It must be clear that the changes between these two documents represent a corrupt processing of evidence. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Why are these curtain rods being tested for Oswald's prints? You must agree something really weird is going on here.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2021, 11:36:52 PM
The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.

No, a bag was found. It may have had two prints belonging to Oswald on it, but it was a bag, made from TSBD materials, and found at the TSBD, where he happened to work. He could have touched that bag at any given time. Without proof that this was the bag Oswald carried and that it contained a broken down MC rifle when he carried it, the bag by itself is just an insignificant bag found at a warehouse.

No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.

Meaningless...

It is found just next to the SN.

So they tell us, but there is no in situ photograph and there are just as many DPD officers who said they saw it as those who said they didn't. But the saddest part is that they can't even agree on who actually found it.

And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.

Bla bla bla... Total BS which assumes that it was indeed Oswald's rifle. The problem is that Marina was shown the rifle on Friday evening and she denied it was Oswald's rifle. You're way into circular logic crap again, "Richard".

You have no evidence that on 11/21/63 there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage or that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but since the MC rifle was found at the TSBD you assume that it must have been stored at Ruth Paine's garage and Oswald must have carried it to the TSBD. Now what was the evidence for that again? Oh yeah, that's right, an MC rifle, which can only tentatively linked to Oswald was found at the TSBD. Everything else you're just making up as you go along.

No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building. 

Another pathetic argument. Oswald also wasn't seen carrying a rifle into the building.

And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

And here we go again; starting with the pre-determined conclusion that it was "Oswald's rifle". How shallow can you be?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 01:24:17 AM
The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!

Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.

Once again you display your stupidity Mr "Smith"...    You assume that Lee had something to hide by denying that he carried a long package.   You suggest that Lee claimed that he didn't have curtain rods in the sack but he should have told the police that he did have a long package and that would have enabled the police to confirm that he did in fact carry a long package. That idea suggests that the package was at least long enough to hold the 35 inch rifle but it ignores the FACT that both Linnie Mae Randle and her brother, Buell Frazier,  swore that the FLIMSY paper sack that they saw was not any longer than 28 inches. AND  IT WAS TOO SHORT TO HAVE HELD THE CARCANO. 

There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.

Do you have an explanation for the rifle being found so far away from the stairs that Lee Oswald couldn't possibly have deposited it there if he had dashed by there after the shooting.....   The rifle was 15feet 4 inches from the North wall and Four feet down beneath stacked boxes of books.   A man would have had to have been about 8 feet tall to have deposited the rifle in the place where it was found. 

P.S.   Roger Craig was 6'  and he said that he could not have placed the rifle on the floor at the place where it was found.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 06:14:29 PM
The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

 A rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow .....   Yes, It sure did, And Lee told Captain Fritz that he had seen the rifle the day before yesterday ( Wednesday, 11/20 /63 ) and Mr Truly had the rifle, and was showing it to some fellow employees. 

Here's the way FBI agent Hosty recorded Lee Oswald's response to Captain Fritz's question  "Have you ever seen this rifle before?"  Lee replied ,  "Yes, I saw this rifle the day before yesterday, Mr Tuly had it and he was showing it to some of the fellows outside his office, which is on the first floor of the building."

Hosty scribbled an abbreviated version of Lee's reply....

Day before yesterday Mr Truly had rifle and two others 1st floor outside office


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:10:34 PM
I know Fritz interrogated (and threatened) Buell.
What makes you think I don't know that.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

Frazier wasn't paying attention to the bag. In the genpop view, he was the guy who drove the killer to the scene. Frazier didn't want to be known as the killer's chauffeur for the rest of his life.

The other Frazier threatened him physically, while the notorious vulture Henry Wade hovered overhead: Why help the cops throw you to the wolves, mulled Lillie Mae..
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:13:01 PM
HUH??    I can't understand you?....  Would you please explain WHY Lee would want to hide the paper sack from Buell Frazier's view?

Not only that, but how does he see where he's going with a package in front of his face?  Not to mention how the end of the package still ends up in his armpit.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:14:36 PM
Just more contrarian rabbit hole nonsense.  There is zero doubt that Oswald is carrying a long package because he gets out of the car with it and walks toward the building.

Who said anything about a "long package"?

No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that nobody saw Oswald carry a package into the TSBD.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:21:57 PM
Oswald's rifle is also found on that floor

LOL

Quote
with the same serial number as the one sent to his PO box by Klein's,

LOL

Quote
he knocks off early for a movie, decides to get his pistol

LOL

Quote
, is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD and pass the scene of the Tippit murder, and he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that multiple witnesses identify him,

LOL

Quote
and he decides to sneak into a movie instead of buying a ticke,

LOL

Quote
and instead of waiting to see what the police want he decides to punch them

LOL

Quote
and then he has the same two brands of ammo

LOL

Quote
as used at the Tippit scene.

LOL

Quote
  Not a shred of evidence!  You should be ashamed.  You lose are credibility when you make outrageous claims like that.

He's not the one making outrageous claims.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?

Exactly.  So your speculation ain't worth sh*t.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:31:53 PM
What a bizarre and kooky response.

Speaking of bizarre and kooky responses...

Quote
Imagine making a case for innocence to a jury when the murder weapon is found at the scene of a crime,

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

Quote
it is linked via documents and serial number to an individual who works at that building,

No, it's "linked" via a copy of a frame from "missing" microfilm to an "A Hidell".

Quote
his wife confirms he owns a rifle,

So?

Quote
he has no alibi or explanation for the rifle's presence there,

How do you even know that?  And why would he have to have an explanation for that?

Quote
and even lies about owning a rifle even though there are recent pictures of him holding a rifle.

And by that you mean pictures taken 8 months earlier holding an unidentifiable rifle.

Quote
  HA HA HA.

Indeed.

Quote
  And he also flees the scene and is identified by multiple individuals as the person who murdered a police officer within an hour.

Nope.  "Multiple individuals" did not witness any murder.  Nor are biased and unfair lineups reliable.

Quote
Wow.  And it is only "circumstantial"!  HA HA HA.  Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.

Says the guy with profound ignorance of what constitutes evidence.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:33:19 PM
There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There's no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Next?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 09:35:21 PM
Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag

Who said you needed to prove that?
>>> You did: Quote from: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 06:45:38 AM "I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it"

What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.
>>> What I actually need to prove is nothing, especially not to those who want to treat this discussion platform as their personal court-of-law.

BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.
>>> "automatically mean" Where did I claim that?

Buell saw the bag at a glance on the back seat of the car. Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded (another hint that an if-guilty Oswald was trying to, in effect, shrink the true size of the bag and thus its contents).

Buell was "honest enough" (or stupid enough) to reveal that he didn't want to be remembered forever as the guy who drove Oswald to work. Yeah, no pause for thought there, huh... no discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements.

Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 09:37:31 PM
Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

And the way prosecuting attorneys work is by trying to sell the idea that a bunch of things that don't constitute evidence of any kind when combined somehow become evidence of murder.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 09:56:32 PM
Speaking of bizarre and kooky responses...

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

No, it's "linked" via a copy of a frame from "missing" microfilm to an "A Hidell".

So?

How do you even know that?  And why would he have to have an explanation for that?

And by that you mean pictures taken 8 months earlier holding an unidentifiable rifle.

Indeed.

Nope.  "Multiple individuals" did not witness any murder.  Nor are biased and unfair lineups reliable.

Says the guy with profound ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

This is the most important question that anybody could ask....    I'm absolutely sure that the carcano was NOT one of the guns that was used to murder JFK......  But I'm a mere pissant in LBJ's eyes. The Vaunted FBI and J. Edgar Hoover proclaimed the 6.5 Carcano to be the murder weapon so I might as well be proclaiming that to a doorknob. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 10:11:01 PM
There's no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Next?

There's no evidence of a lunch bag that needed to be palmed and shoved up into an armpit. Unless Oswald was having pancakes for lunch... that almost touched the ground as he apparently didn't need to palm the bag and shove it into an armpit in IrvinG earlier that morning.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 10:26:27 PM
Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

If you're going to claim that Oswald brought a broken-down rifle with a 34.8-inch long stock in the bag that Frazier saw that morning, then it is contingent upon you to provide evidence for said claim.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 10:31:20 PM
The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.

No.  A bag that Frazier said was not the same package was claimed to have been found next to the alleged SN, but it doesn't appear in any crime scene photos, the first 5 or 6 deputies on the scene don't remember seeing it, and there are contradictory stories from the people who found it as to when it was found, where it was found, and how it was folded.

Besides, there isn't even any evidence of a rifle ever having been in that bag either.

Quote
And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!

"His rifle".  LOL.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 10:39:36 PM
If you're going to claim that Oswald brought a broken-down rifle with a 34.8-inch long stock in the bag that Frazier saw that morning, then it is contingent upon you to provide evidence for said claim.

Where exactly do I claim that such a bag was brought into work by Oswald?
 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 10:40:03 PM
>>> What I actually need to prove is nothing, especially not to those who want to treat this discussion platform as their personal court-of-law.

Says the clown who treats this forum as his personal display of colossal ignorance and attempts at being "clever".

Quote
Buell was "honest enough" (or stupid enough) to reveal that he didn't want to be remembered forever as the guy who drove Oswald to work.

How do you know what Buell was thinking?  Was this before or after he was threatened by the "other Frazier"?

Quote
Yeah, no pause for thought there, huh... no discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements.

Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

Quote
Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.

He said "evidence", not just a restatement of the same claim.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 10:42:56 PM
There's no evidence of a lunch bag that needed to be palmed and shoved up into an armpit.

On the contrary.  The evidence is Frazier's description.  What there is actually no evidence of is your fanciful description of a bag sticking up in front of Oswald's face.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 10:45:39 PM
Where exactly do I claim that such a bag was brought into work by Oswald?

It's truly pathetic that you can't even remember what you wrote an hour ago.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2021, 10:53:17 PM
No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.

Just a hunch here, Mr Smith, but I'm thinking that if someone involved in the assassination plot wished to get a rifle into the building they might think to put it in something first so that folks wouldn't notice them getting a rifle into the building.

There is thus absolutely no difficulty in explaining how a rifle might have been gotten into the building.........

(https://images2.imgbox.com/47/4c/ezZgQPjC_o.jpg) (https://images2.imgbox.com/b5/fd/2tu4yBcR_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 11:03:46 PM
On the contrary.  The evidence is Frazier's description.  What there is actually no evidence of is your fanciful description of a bag sticking up in front of Oswald's face.

In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 03, 2021, 11:06:58 PM
In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.

This sentence is a masterpiece of nonsense. Bravo, Mr Chapman!  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 11:07:33 PM
It's truly pathetic that you can't even remember what you wrote an hour ago.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)

That was a dig
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 11:15:17 PM
Says the clown who treats this forum as his personal display of colossal ignorance and attempts at being "clever".

How do you know what Buell was thinking?  Was this before or after he was threatened by the "other Frazier"?

Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

He said "evidence", not just a restatement of the same claim.


Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

How would Buell or Linnie Mae know what length the bag needed to reduced to???   When Fritz was informed that the paper sack that had been presented as the sack that Lee had used to transport the carcano was too short to have been used for that purpose.....Fritz immediately retorted..."Well, he must have broke the rifle down then, and I'm sure he did"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2021, 11:15:24 PM
Who said you needed to prove that?
>>> You did: Quote from: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 06:45:38 AM "I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it"

That's not me asking you to prove it. It is me concluding that you can not prove it.

Quote
What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.
>>> What I actually need to prove is nothing, especially not to those who want to treat this discussion platform as their personal court-of-law.

Run boy, run as fast as you can. Your claim that Oswald brought a broken down MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag is bogus unless you can prove it. It seems you can't prove it, so the conclusion that your claim is bogus is justified.

Quote
BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.
>>> "automatically mean" Where did I claim that?

You seem to get tied up in your web of misrepresentations, bogus tales and bold statements (implied or otherwise) that you can't back up with evidence.

Quote
Buell saw the bag at a glance on the back seat of the car. Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded (another hint that an if-guilty Oswald was trying to, in effect, shrink the true size of the bag and thus its contents).

Buell was "honest enough" (or stupid enough) to reveal that he didn't want to be remembered forever as the guy who drove Oswald to work. Yeah, no pause for thought there, huh... no discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements.

What the hell are you doing? Do you think before you write? First of all, by running away you've already shown us all that your claim that Oswald took a rifle to the TBSB is bogus, because you can't back it up with evidence. Yet here you are, trying to cast doubt on the size of the bag. And you're doing it rather stupidly, by first claiming that Frazier only saw that back "at a glance" (apparently intended to suggest that he didn't see it well enough to determine it's size) and then following it up with the claim that Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded, which of course means that he did get a good look at the bag after all. After such a glaring contradiction, I'd say we can ignore all your opinions about Oswald's intend and Frazier's honesty.

Quote
Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.

Great... back to square one. Present the evidence for that claim or be branded a liar who makes up "evidence" whenever he needs it.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2021, 11:22:46 PM
In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.

You're not investigating anything. Instead you are just making wild claims you can (or will) not back up with evidence.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 11:24:28 PM
Says the clown who treats this forum as his personal display of colossal ignorance and attempts at being "clever".

How do you know what Buell was thinking?  Was this before or after he was threatened by the "other Frazier"?

Evidence that there was a "discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements"?

He said "evidence", not just a restatement of the same claim.

I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 03, 2021, 11:26:46 PM
You're not investigating anything. Instead you are just making wild claims you can (or will) not back up with evidence.

Name a few wild claims
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2021, 11:29:28 PM
I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law

Translation; "I was expecting that you take my word for whatever it is I say, so why are you harassing me about all this evidence stuff?"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2021, 11:33:23 PM
Name a few wild claims

And waste my time? No way. I'm not playing your little game.

Your posting history is full of wild claims..... but here's one;


Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried.

and don't give that "That was a dig" crap....

Btw, just so you understand, this time the quotation marks were used to actually quote you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:36:32 PM
In other words, stop investigating the ways that the bag can be manipulated to challenge what Buell concludes was under the armpit solely because he saw nothing above the shoulders.

You're mistaking "speculation" for "investigation".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:40:08 PM
I see evidence that you also consider this discussion platform as your personal court-of-law

Informed people discuss the case and the evidence.  Ignorant people get the details wrong, play word games, post movie clips, and try to act clever while never saying anything relevant.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:45:51 PM
Name a few wild claims

Here's another one:

Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:48:19 PM
Yet another one:

Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:52:04 PM
and another:

Tell us what would motivate someone to use the autistic Jack Dougherty as an assassin in the first place. Or even a deranged loser like Oswald. Or yet another deranged loser in the person of one Jack Ruby.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 03, 2021, 11:59:11 PM
The hits just keep on coming.  The question is, when doesn't Chapman make wild claims?

Says the guy who sticks up for Charlie Manson.
Who's next? Richard Kuklinski?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 12:17:17 AM
The hits just keep on coming.  The question is, when doesn't Chapman make wild claims?

When he's breaking personal confidences re. deceased spouses
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:21:17 AM
That's not me asking you to prove it. It is me concluding that you can not prove it.

Run boy, run as fast as you can. Your claim that Oswald brought a broken down MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag is bogus unless you can prove it. It seems you can't prove it, so the conclusion that your claim is bogus is justified.

You seem to get tied up in your web of misrepresentations, bogus tales and bold statements (implied or otherwise) that you can't back up with evidence.

What the hell are you doing? Do you think before you write? First of all, by running away you've already shown us all that your claim that Oswald took a rifle to the TBSB is bogus, because you can't back it up with evidence. Yet here you are, trying to cast doubt on the size of the bag. And you're doing it rather stupidly, by first claiming that Frazier only saw that back "at a glance" (apparently intended to suggest that he didn't see it well enough to determine it's size) and then following it up with the claim that Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded, which of course means that he did get a good look at the bag after all. After such a glaring contradiction, I'd say we can ignore all your opinions about Oswald's intend and Frazier's honesty.

Great... back to square one. Present the evidence for that claim or be branded a liar who makes up "evidence" whenever he needs it.

Your star witness got a good look at a shortened bag. Saw even less of the bag while being left in the dust by the speeding Oswald.

Now let's see why Oswald's lunch would need to be palmed and shoved into an armpit.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k4Xgy4ms/Buell-palmed-bag.png)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:28:50 AM
Here's another one:

Eyes on
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 12:29:35 AM
Now let's see why Oswald's lunch would need to be palmed and shoved into an armpit. You'd think his sandwich, apple etc would be palmed at the bottom, and either folded completely or simply carried in the pocket of the jacket with "big sleeves".

That's easy: the bag contained 2 curtain rods measuring just over 27 inches.

If you disagree, then you will explain the information and dates on this document---------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

If you cannot explain the information and dates on this document, then we will laugh at you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:39:31 AM
When he's breaking personal confidences re. deceased spouses

When I take note of an Oswald-lover kneeling at Oswald's grave
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 12:41:01 AM
Your star witness got a good look at a shortened bag. Saw even less of the bag while being left in the dust by the speeding Oswald.

Now let's see why Oswald's lunch would need to be palmed and shoved into an armpit. You'd think his sandwich, apple etc would be palmed at the bottom, and either folded completely or simply carried in the pocket of the jacket with "big sleeves".

(https://i.postimg.cc/k4Xgy4ms/Buell-palmed-bag.png)

Your star witness got a good look at a shortened bag.

It's not my star witness. It's the only witness... and for some inexplicable reason you (who wasn't there) doesn't want to believe him.... Could it be bias?

Saw even less of the bag while being left in the dust by the speeding Oswald.

The last time he saw the bag Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Do you have any evidence that contradicts that?

Now let's see why Oswald's lunch would need to be palmed and shoved into an armpit. You'd think his sandwich, apple etc would be palmed at the bottom, and either folded completely or simply carried in the pocket of the jacket with "big sleeves".

I'm not interested in your opinions. You assume that the bag contained Oswald's lunch, but there is no way you know that for sure. All you do is speculating.

Here's an alternative; Oswald is supposed to have carried his rifle on a bus to New Orleans. If that's what he did, he would have probably used some sort of duffle bag, like the ones found in Ruth Paine's garage. So, if he wanted to bring an MC rifle into the TSBD why not simply use a duffle bag, rather than specially making a paper bag from TSBD materials and smuggling it to Irving?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:44:35 AM
That's easy: the bag contained 2 curtain rods measuring just over 27 inches.

If you disagree, then you will explain the information and dates on this document---------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

If you cannot explain the information and dates on this document, then we will laugh at you.

Oswald said the bag contained his lunch
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 12:51:40 AM
Oswald said the bag contained his lunch

 :D

So you STILL have no idea how to explain the information and dates on the document. Thanks for confirming!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:53:14 AM
Here's another one:

Here, I'll soften that for you:
1) Oswald got the draw on Tippit and probably shot Kennedy
2) Oswald got the draw on Tippit and probably shot at Kennedy

Am I getting warmer, JudgeJohnny?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 12:56:54 AM
:D

So you STILL have no idea how to explain the information and dates on the document. Thanks for confirming!  Thumb1:

Typical desperate, needy CTer
You STILL have no idea that I'm not interested in your pet theory
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 01:05:34 AM
Typical desperate, needy CTer
You STILL have no idea that I'm not interested in your pet theory

Of course your not. You're only here because you're a lonely man who can't be taken seriously and desperately needs some sort of recognition.

That last thing your interested in is the JFK murder. That's why you joined a JFK assassination forum.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 01:20:54 AM
When he's breaking personal confidences re. deceased spouses

Any man who suffers the lost of a beloved wife would welcome condolences, especially from a community in which he had a long relationship. Yet here you are trying to weaponize the notion.

So continues the desperate, over-arching defence of your beloved Oswald.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 01:25:46 AM
Any man who suffers the lost of a beloved wife would welcome condolences, especially from a community in which he had a long relationship. Yet here you are trying to weaponize the notion.

So continues the desperate, over-arching defence of your beloved Oswald.

Yet here you are trying to weaponize the notion.

No. You were given personal information in a private message and you, as the low life you are, decided to put it on a public forum, without even first consulting with the person involved.

I'm not sure what is worse; you making the mistake in the first place or trying to justify it.

Once a weasel, always a weasel
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 01:29:11 AM
Of course your not. You're only here because you're a lonely man who can't be taken seriously and desperately needs some sort of recognition.

That last thing your interested in is the JFK murder. That's why you joined a JFK assassination forum.

Typical CTer rationalization for being not being taken seriously.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 01:47:43 AM
Yet here you are trying to weaponize the notion.

No. You were given personal information in a private message and you, as the low life you are, decided to put it on a public forum, without even first consulting with the person involved.

I'm not sure what is worse; you making the mistake in the first place or trying to justify it.

Once a weasel, always a weasel

No. You were given personal information in a private message and you, as the low life you are, decided to put it on a public forum, without even first consulting with the person involved.
>>> You're trying to make it sound like Tony is still active on this forum and that everything happened present day, and that he contacted me privately and I immediately went public.

Well?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 01:52:02 AM
Typical CTer rationalization for being not being taken seriously.

You really must be getting desperate by now. Maybe it's time to change forum... might I suggest something with cooking.

Or perhaps a forum about migrating birds where you can extensively discuss the murder of JFK, paper bags and who knows what else.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 02:15:21 AM
No. You were given personal information in a private message and you, as the low life you are, decided to put it on a public forum, without even first consulting with the person involved.
>>> You're trying to make it sound like Tony is still active on this forum and that everything happened present day, and that he contacted me privately and I immediately went public.

Well?

No, I am saying that you violated Tony's trust by making public something that he told you in a private message.

The fact that Tony hasn't been active for some time has nothing to do with it.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 02:20:26 AM
Just a hunch here, Mr Smith, but I'm thinking that if someone involved in the assassination plot wished to get a rifle into the building they might think to put it in something first so that folks wouldn't notice them getting a rifle into the building.

There is thus absolutely no difficulty in explaining how a rifle might have been gotten into the building.........



HA HA HA.  This one is a keeper.  The irony abounds.  You mean like a bag?  And if asked, they might say it contained curtain rods.  Wow.  You can't be for real.  Caprio where are you?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 04:24:25 AM
No, I am saying that you violated Tony's trust by making public something that he told you in a private message.

The fact that Tony hasn't been active for some time has nothing to do with it.

It matters because I have no idea how to contact members who have disappeared unannounced. I see no harm in informing an inquisitive, seemingly concerned-about-Tony-member what I think probably caused his departure.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 04:43:22 AM
You really must be getting desperate by now. Maybe it's time to change forum... might I suggest something with cooking.

Or perhaps a forum about migrating birds where you can extensively discuss the murder of JFK, paper bags and who knows what else.

Maybe, Mr Always Logged In, you can tag along and show us why Oswald would want to palm his sandwich and then jam the top of his lunch bag into his armpit.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k4Xgy4ms/Buell-palmed-bag.png)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 05:03:29 AM
Of course your not. You're only here because you're a lonely man who can't be taken seriously and desperately needs some sort of recognition.

That last thing your interested in is the JFK murder. That's why you joined a JFK assassination forum.

Yeah that makes perfect sense  ::)
You're way too far down the rabbit hole Mr Always Logged In.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 11:07:56 AM
HA HA HA.  This one is a keeper.  The irony abounds.  You mean like a bag?

Sure, as long as it's a bag large enough to hold the weapon, i.e. not the bag Mr Oswald was seen bringing to work 11/22. That bag was the perfect size for holding ~27-inch curtain rods.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 11:24:18 AM
It matters because I have no idea how to contact members who have disappeared unannounced. I see no harm in informing an inquisitive, seemingly concerned-about-Tony-member what I think probably caused his departure.

So you justify making public personal information given to you in confidence and betraying somebody's trust by simply saying that you don't know how to contact the person involved. Wow!

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 11:44:14 AM
Maybe, Mr Always Logged In, you can tag along and show us why Oswald would want to palm his sandwich and then jam the top of his lunch bag into his armpit.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k4Xgy4ms/Buell-palmed-bag.png)


Yeah that makes perfect sense  ::)
You're way too far down the rabbit hole Mr Always Logged In.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that whatever you're interested in talking about, it isn't the JFK assassination!   Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
HA HA HA.  This one is a keeper.  The irony abounds.  You mean like a bag?  And if asked, they might say it contained curtain rods.  Wow.  You can't be for real.  Caprio where are you?

I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but I am having a hard time understanding why Oswald would make a paper bag at the TSBD (and risk being caught, doing it), when he previously transported the MC rifle unnoticed to New Orleans on public transport and thus already had a successful means to conceal the weapon.

Why would he go through the trouble of making a bag when he had at least one duffle bag in Ruth Paine's garage he could have used?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 03:17:19 PM
Sure, as long as it's a bag large enough to hold the weapon, i.e. not the bag Mr Oswald was seen bringing to work 11/22. That bag was the perfect size for holding ~27-inch curtain rods.  Thumb1:

Tell it to your hero Oswald since he denied carrying any curtain rods or bag that size.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 03:23:41 PM
I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but I am having a hard time understanding why Oswald would make a paper bag at the TSBD (and risk being caught, doing it), when he previously transported the MC rifle unnoticed to New Orleans on public transport and thus already had a successful means to conceal the weapon.

Why would he go through the trouble of making a bag when he had at least one duffle bag in Ruth Paine's garage he could have used?

He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.  And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.  If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.  It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that matters.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 03:29:08 PM
Tell it to your hero Oswald since he denied carrying any curtain rods or bag that size.

A point already addressed at least a dozen times in this thread alone. But on you go, with that studied LNer cluelessness of yours  :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 03:31:14 PM
He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.  And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.  If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.  It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that matters.

'Because LHO must have shot Kennedy, he must have brought that rifle into the building. Because LHO must have brought that rifle into the building, he must have shot Kennedy.' Real Sherlock Holmes material there, Mr Smith
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 03:36:16 PM
A point already addressed at least a dozen times in this thread alone. But on you go, with that studied LNer cluelessness of yours  :D

Says the guy who has posted the exact same form at least a thousands times.  It's a fact that Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods to the police despite telling Frazier that is what he had in his bag.  It's a fact that Oswald told the police that he had only his lunch but Frazier indicated he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he did not bring it that day.  So why is your hero lying to the police or Frazier about these mundane matters.  He is lying to one or the other.  Why would he lie to the police about having curtain rods?  That was no crime and he had every incentive to direct the police to them but instead he acts against his own self interest by denying that he carried any curtain rods even though Frazier could have corroborated that story.  And what explanation is there for this strange long bag found with Oswald's prints on it.  It is found next to the SN.  There was no apparent work-related purpose for any such bag in that building.  It appears to be singular as no other such bag was found or can be seen in any pictures.  No one else who worked in the building gave any explanation for such a bag or explained its presence.  There is one obvious explanation for it.  Guess what that is?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 03:41:03 PM
'Because LHO must have shot Kennedy, he must have brought that rifle into the building. Because LHO must have brought that rifle into the building, he must have shot Kennedy.' Real Sherlock Holmes material there, Mr Smith

Huh? What manner of rambling is that?  Fact: JFK was assassinated with a rifle.  Fact:  Witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window in the TSBD.  Fact: Oswald's rifle was found on that floor.  This is not very complicated.   Oswald's rifle is found at the murder scene!  There is no exculpatory explanation for its presence at that location.  In fact, Oswald lies about his ownership of the rifle even though it is linked to him via a serial number.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:09:04 PM
Your star witness got a good look at a shortened bag. Saw even less of the bag while being left in the dust by the speeding Oswald.

"Speeding Oswald".  Another wild claim.  The hits keep on coming.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:10:40 PM
When I take note of an Oswald-lover kneeling at Oswald's grave

Says the guy who visited his father's grave.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:12:36 PM
Here, I'll soften that for you:
1) Oswald got the draw on Tippit and probably shot Kennedy
2) Oswald got the draw on Tippit and probably shot at Kennedy

Even "softened", it's still an unsubstantiated claim.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:13:19 PM
Typical desperate, needy CTer
You STILL have no idea that I'm not interested in your pet theory

And you have no idea that nobody is interested in your "witty" repartee.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:15:08 PM
Maybe, Mr Always Logged In, you can tag along and show us why Oswald would want to palm his sandwich and then jam the top of his lunch bag into his armpit.

Who cares?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:19:31 PM
Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point)

Of course there is.  You have zero (and I mean ZERO) evidence of that.

Quote
his rifle was found on the 6th floor.

"His rifle".  LOL.

Quote
   Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.

You have zero evidence that the rifle allegedly found on the sixth floor was ever in the Paine garage.

Quote
This is not Sherlock Holmes material.

No, it's the "Richard Smith" speculation bus.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:23:54 PM
Says the guy who has posted the exact same form at least a thousands times.  It's a fact that Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods to the police despite telling Frazier that is what he had in his bag.

You don't know for a fact hat Oswald said to Frazier or to Fritz.

Quote
Why would he lie to the police about having curtain rods?

Is that supposed to somehow be evidence of murder?

Quote
And what explanation is there for this strange long bag found with Oswald's prints on it.  It is found next to the SN.

It is?  By whom?

Quote
  There was no apparent work-related purpose for any such bag in that building.

Gee, some paper used for wrapping book orders was found in a building that wraps and ships book orders.  How odd.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 04:24:47 PM
In fact, Oswald lies about his ownership of the rifle even though it is linked to him via a serial number.

LOL
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.  And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.  If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.  It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that matters.

He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   

He was, was he? How in the world would you even know something like that and what do you say to the LNs that claim that Oswald only decided to try to kill Kennedy after Marina turned him down?

What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.

The risk would be that he would be noticed prior to the crime doing something unsual which people like Troy West would remember. Btw what lie did he tell Frazier and how would you even know that?

And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   

There is not only massive doubt about Oswald carrying the rifle in a paper bag on 11/22/63, it also is by no way clear that it was "his rifle" that was found at the TSBD.

Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.

It's indeed no Sherlock Holmes material. It's fairytale material from la la land.

Does the legal objection "assumes facts not in evidence" mean anything to you?

If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.

It's not what I want to believe that matters. It's what you want to believe to make the fairytale work, at least to some extent. Unlike what your usual circular "logic" suggests, there is actually not a shred of evidence that Oswald ever smuggled a rifle of any kind into the TSBD.

It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that
matters.


Backing away from the bogus paper bag speculation? But for once we agree to some extent. To make the agreement perfect all you need to do now is prove that (1) the MC rifle found at the TSBD was indeed owned by Oswald and (2) that the rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63. Can you do that?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 04:45:38 PM
"Speeding Oswald".  Another wild claim.  The hits keep on coming.

Wild only to Oswald-lovers
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 04, 2021, 05:37:29 PM
Wild only to Oswald-lovers
Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous. It doesn't have to be related to the assassination. Anything. They just don't like criticism of him.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Oswald could say, "I could shoot someone on Elm Street in Dallas and I wouldn't lose any of my supporters, OK?"

Both are right.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 05:54:02 PM
Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous. It doesn't have to be related to the assassination. Anything. They just don't like criticism of him.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Oswald could say, "I could shoot someone on Elm Street in Dallas and I wouldn't lose any of my supporters, OK?"

Both are right.

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous.

Stop playing the victim. I doesn't work. When you and your fellow nutters make a claim, no matter how minor or innocuous, it needs to be supported by evidence, yet it mostly isn't. This is no longer the 1600's where anybody, without evidence, could call a woman a witch to seal her fate!

If you had a compelling and persuasive case against Oswald, you wouldn't be complaining and this forum would likely not exist. You are only complaining because your arguments fail to persuade anybody with a functional brain. It has nothing to do with people not liking criticism of Oswald. Instead it has everything to do with the extremely weak circumstantial case you and your ilk are constantly presenting. You lot are like bad, incompetent, prosecutors who are complaining to the judge that the jury is unfair because they don't believe their crappy story.

Stop complaining, clean up your act and for once present something conclusive against Oswald, and by that I don't mean speculation and assumptions!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 04, 2021, 06:11:24 PM
He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   

He was, was he? How in the world would you even know something like that and what do you say to the LNs that claim that Oswald only decided to try to kill Kennedy after Marina turned him down?

What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.

The risk would be that he would be noticed prior to the crime doing something unsual which people like Troy West would remember. Btw what lie did he tell Frazier and how would you even know that?

And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   

There is not only massive doubt about Oswald carrying the rifle in a paper bag on 11/22/63, it also is by no way clear that it was "his rifle" that was found at the TSBD.

Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.

It's indeed no Sherlock Holmes material. It's fairytale material from la la land.

Does the legal objection "assumes facts not in evidence" mean anything to you?

If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.

It's not what I want to believe that matters. It's what you want to believe to make the fairytale work, at least to some extent. Unlike what your usual circular "logic" suggests, there is actually not a shred of evidence that Oswald ever smuggled a rifle of any kind into the TSBD.

It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that
matters.


Backing away from the bogus paper bag speculation? But for once we agree to some extent. To make the agreement perfect all you need to do now is prove that (1) the MC rifle found at the TSBD was indeed owned by Oswald and (2) that the rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63. Can you do that?

(2) that the rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63.

If anybody could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the carcano was fired on 11/22/63.   Then the Lner's would have something they could use..... ( It still wouldn't prove that Lee Oswald fired it)   HOWEVER....There is many reasons that indicate the rifle was NOT fired that day. 
A) The bore was dirty and rusty..... A rifle that had three rounds fired through the barrel would not be dirty and rusty

B) Nobody reported the pungent smell of gun powder ( especially when Fritz opened the bolt)  If the rifle had been fired only an hour before it was found there would have been the smell of gunpowder on it.   And the same thing applies to the spent cartridges.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 04, 2021, 06:13:44 PM
Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one.

Didja' ever notice that Mr Galbraith runs away from the challenge of explaining this document? Every single time.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 06:41:24 PM
Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous. It doesn't have to be related to the assassination. Anything. They just don't like criticism of him.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Oswald could say, "I could shoot someone on Elm Street in Dallas and I wouldn't lose any of my supporters, OK?"

Both are right.

Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

Note how Weidmann, Cakebread and others always have to pepper practically every response with 'spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains' extract your head' 'a functioning brain, and the like.

Rather telling, eh wot.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 04, 2021, 07:01:32 PM
Heck, Oswald can even do Trump one better.

Oswald: "I can shoot two people in the middle of the street and won't lose my supporters."

Take that Donald.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 07:12:03 PM
You're mistaking "speculation" for "investigation".

You mistake your opinion for fact
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 07:17:02 PM
Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders?

How is Chapman's wild claim of a "speeding Oswald" (which btw isn't supported by any evidence) "critical of Oswald"?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 07:18:13 PM
Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

YAWN
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 07:19:44 PM
Heck, Oswald can even do Trump one better.

Oswald: "I can shoot two people in the middle of the street and won't lose my supporters."

Take that Donald.

Says a guy who can't demonstrate that Oswald shot anybody.  Pointing out your flawed arguments against a person does not constitute being his "supporter".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 07:20:24 PM
You mistake your opinion for fact

No, I am quite clear on the difference.  You...not so much.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 07:25:36 PM
Heck, Oswald can even do Trump one better.

Oswald: "I can shoot two people in the middle of the street and won't lose my supporters."

Take that Donald.

Oswald: I confess, I killed Tippit and Kennedy
JudgeJohnny: That doesn't prove that you meant to.
You can go.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 08:00:43 PM
Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

Note how Weidmann, Cakebread and others always have to pepper practically every response with 'spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains' extract your head' 'a functioning brain, and the like.

Rather telling, eh wot.

Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

Well, if your cult's high priest says it, it must be true....  :D

Note how Weidmann, Cakebread and others always have to pepper practically every response with 'spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains' extract your head' 'a functioning brain, and the like.

Truth needs to be told, no matter how often it has to be repeated for people without a functioning brain, like you!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
How is Chapman's wild claim of a "speeding Oswald" (which btw isn't supported by any evidence) "critical of Oswald"?

'speeding Oswald'

'Sped off' would be more precise. Oswald buggered off as soon as Buell started to get out of the car, didn't wait for him. Another twilight zone episode chalked up for the little prick.

Yeah, nothing strange there. But staring into a person's window like some sort of mental case can be invoked here if you want to give him another pass, JudgeJohnny.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 08:14:29 PM
Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

Well, if your cult's high priest says it, it must be true....  :D

Note how Weidmann, Cakebread and others always have to pepper practically every response with 'spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains' extract your head' 'a functioning brain, and the like.

Truth needs to be told, no matter how often it has to be repeated for people without a function brain, like you!

I rest my case
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 04, 2021, 08:19:57 PM
You don't know for a fact hat Oswald said to Frazier or to Fritz.

Is that supposed to somehow be evidence of murder?

It is?  By whom?

Gee, some paper used for wrapping book orders was found in a building that wraps and ships book orders.  How odd.

Gee, somebody must have been planning to ship a scroll
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 08:21:40 PM
I rest my case

You have a case?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 08:50:20 PM
Oswald: I confess, I killed Tippit and Kennedy
JudgeJohnny: That doesn't prove that you meant to.
You can go.

This latest exercise in "clever" sarcasm is just as irrelevant as all of your other lame attempts.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 08:51:38 PM
'speeding Oswald'

'Sped off' would be more precise. Oswald buggered off as soon as Buell started to get out of the car, didn't wait for him.

Yet another stunning example of your utter ignorance about the case.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 04, 2021, 09:49:57 PM
In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.  You make that level of dishonesty up.  Yes, nothing suspicious about that bag!  And Old Lee couldn't catch a break.  His prints are the only TSBD employee whose prints are on that bag.  And it is right next to the SN window from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle.  What rotten luck!  And it was a singular bag with no work related purpose.  No one, for example, who worked in the building ever came forward and explained why such a bag was there or suggested it was used for some work-related purpose, or claimed it.  It just mysteriously appeared there for some unknown reason.   A three foot plus long, homemade bag!  Wow.  That is the stuff of a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2021, 10:18:45 PM
In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.  You make that level of dishonesty up.  Yes, nothing suspicious about that bag!

Your evidence that it was used to carry a rifle is...?  Oh yeah, you don't have any.  You can't even demonstrate that it was "found next to the SN".  Or even who found it.  Speaking of dishonesty...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 04, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.  You make that level of dishonesty up.  Yes, nothing suspicious about that bag!  And Old Lee couldn't catch a break.  His prints are the only TSBD employee whose prints are on that bag.  And it is right next to the SN window from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle.  What rotten luck!  And it was a singular bag with no work related purpose.  No one, for example, who worked in the building ever came forward and explained why such a bag was there or suggested it was used for some work-related purpose, or claimed it.  It just mysteriously appeared there for some unknown reason.   A three foot plus long, homemade bag!  Wow.  That is the stuff of a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty.

I don't remember which detective it was who described the "paper sack" as .. " actually it was just a piece of folded up brown paper. It looked just like the other book wrappers that were scattered about up there" ( Paraphrased)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2021, 10:40:06 PM
In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.  You make that level of dishonesty up.  Yes, nothing suspicious about that bag!  And Old Lee couldn't catch a break.  His prints are the only TSBD employee whose prints are on that bag.  And it is right next to the SN window from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle.  What rotten luck!  And it was a singular bag with no work related purpose.  No one, for example, who worked in the building ever came forward and explained why such a bag was there or suggested it was used for some work-related purpose, or claimed it.  It just mysteriously appeared there for some unknown reason.   A three foot plus long, homemade bag!  Wow.  That is the stuff of a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty.

In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.

As the bag was made from wrapping paper used to ship books, you're actually 100% correct.

His prints are the only TSBD employee whose prints are on that bag. 

Really? So you know who the other prints found on the bag belong to? You must do because otherwise you wouldn't be able to make such a statement. So, who are they?

And it is right next to the SN window from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle. 

Sure about that?

And it was a singular bag with no work related purpose.

And you know this, how?

No one, for example, who worked in the building ever came forward and explained why such a bag was there or suggested it was used for some work-related purpose, or claimed it.

BS.. Do you really believe that people would come forward without hesitation and get involved in the murder of a President? Just how naive are you. For crying out loud, Brennan explained his failure to identify Oswald at the line up with his alleged fear to get involved. It was total BS in my opinion but he said it nevertheless.

It just mysteriously appeared there for some unknown reason.

Appeared where? And when? After Day went down to the wrapping department, perhaps?

A three foot plus long, homemade bag!  Wow.

There was nothing "homemade" about the bag. It was made at the TSBD, from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD. There is no evidence it ever left the building. Oh yeah... and how do you explain the bag that was later found in the post? Did Oswald make two bags and mail one to himself at a wrong address?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 12:53:15 AM
In which we learn that a three foot plus long, homemade bag found next to the SN is just some "paper for wrapping book orders."  LOL.  You make that level of dishonesty up.  Yes, nothing suspicious about that bag!  And Old Lee couldn't catch a break.  His prints are the only TSBD employee whose prints are on that bag.  And it is right next to the SN window from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle.  What rotten luck!  And it was a singular bag with no work related purpose.  No one, for example, who worked in the building ever came forward and explained why such a bag was there or suggested it was used for some work-related purpose, or claimed it.  It just mysteriously appeared there for some unknown reason.   A three foot plus long, homemade bag!  Wow.  That is the stuff of a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty.

Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books
(lightened to reveal details)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kMb0kXr9/oswald-gun-bag.png)

Yep, the sellers of the books are going to send their clients books wrapped in tattered paper with sloppily taped ends.
By the way, exactly how would somebody carry books in such a package... or even want to? Oh, never mind such details... there's never been a pet theory these 'researchers' didn't like.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 12:59:40 AM
This latest exercise in "clever" sarcasm is just as irrelevant as all of your other lame attempts.

Boo-hoo
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 05, 2021, 01:03:52 AM
Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books
(lightened to reveal details)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kMb0kXr9/oswald-gun-bag.png)

Yep, the sellers of the books are going to send their clients books wrapped in tattered paper with sloppily taped ends.
By the way, exactly how would somebody carry books in such a package... or even want to? Oh, never mind such details... there's never been a pet theory these 'researchers' didn't like.

I heard War and Peace was a really long book.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 01:10:20 AM
Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books
(lightened to reveal details)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kMb0kXr9/oswald-gun-bag.png)

Yep, the sellers of the books are going to send their clients books wrapped in tattered paper with sloppily taped ends.
By the way, exactly how would somebody carry books in such a package... or even want to? Oh, never mind such details... there's never been a pet theory these 'researchers' didn't like.

Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books

That's not Oswald's bag. Buell Frazier, the only witness who saw the bag, denied on Friday evening 11/22/63 that this was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry and he is still saying the same thing to this day.

Stop making up stuff!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 01:10:49 AM
You have a case?

Do you have a life, Mr Always Logged In?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 01:29:49 AM
Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books

That's not Oswald's bag. Buell Frazier, the only witness who saw the bag, denied on Friday evening 11/22/63 that this was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry and he is still saying the same thing to this day.

Stop making up stuff!

Randle also saw the bag.
Stop making stuff up.

The Long Brown Bag
Macadams

By Magen Knuth:

'So Frazier clearly was not paying attention to the package. He even stated in an affidavit that the bag from the Depository could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 01:45:23 AM
I heard War and Peace was a really long book.

Good one
But not thin
Maybe they ship scrolls to some clients

And maybe that's how they ship the word-salads CTers concoct when they  retreat to their endless whataboutisms
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 01:48:32 AM
This latest exercise in "clever" sarcasm is just as irrelevant as all of your other lame attempts.

Sure, Johnny, sure.

Now, careful you don't choke on all that hatred poring out of that big mouth of yours.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 01:51:37 AM
Randle also saw the bag.
Stop making stuff up.

The Long Brown Bag
Macadams

Magen Knuff:

'So Frazier clearly was not paying attention to the package. He even stated in an affidavit that the bag from the Depository could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack"

Bla bla bla... All you've got is opinions. Not a shred of evidence anywhere. Neither Buell Frazier or Randle ever identified the bag you are trying to pass off as Oswald's.

You are making stuff up and no quotes from MacAdams' propaganda site will ever change that.

If you want to claim that the bag you have shown was Oswald's bag, you need to prove it.... but you won't, because you can't.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 05, 2021, 02:03:37 AM
This photo appears to have been taken for a weirdly........................ specific reason-----------------------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/27/Nqvkl0XA_o.png)

Was something found under this bench?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 05:33:46 AM
This latest exercise in "clever" sarcasm is just as irrelevant as all of your other lame attempts.

Oswald: I'm guilty. I killed Tippit and Kennedy.
JudgeJohnny: LOL!! PROVE IT!! THAT'S ONLY YOUR OPINION!! I WASN'T THERE TO SEE YOU KILL ANYBODY SO YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!! I'M GOING TO PISS ON YOUR GRAVE, YOU LITTLE PRICK!!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 02:38:00 PM
Bla bla bla... All you've got is opinions. Not a shred of evidence anywhere. Neither Buell Frazier or Randle ever identified the bag you are trying to pass off as Oswald's.

You are making stuff up and no quotes from MacAdams' propaganda site will ever change that.

If you want to claim that the bag you have shown was Oswald's bag, you need to prove it.... but you won't, because you can't.

OMG. Or let me borrow Richard's 'Good grief' if I may: Kindly point out where I ever claimed that I could actually prove anything here.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 02:54:39 PM
OMG. Or let me borrow Richard's 'Good grief' if I may: Kindly point out where out I ever claimed that I could actually prove anything here.

where out I ever claimed that I could actually prove anything here.

Which only means that whatever idiotic claim you make is completely worthless and insignificant.

Thanks for making that clear  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 05, 2021, 02:55:55 PM
Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books

That's not Oswald's bag. Buell Frazier, the only witness who saw the bag, denied on Friday evening 11/22/63 that this was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry and he is still saying the same thing to this day.

Stop making up stuff!

As usual you can't follow along.  That is the bag your contrarian brother suggests is just ordinary "paper for wrapping books."  Suggesting it was not suspicious and could have been used for some work-related purpose. HA HA HA.  Do you believe that a three foot plus long bag taped like that was being used to wrap books?  Have you seen pictures of any similar looking bags in the TSBD?  Did any other TSBD employee ever provide an explanation for that bag or suggested it was the type of bag that they used in the course of their business?  Wow.  It is a singular bag.  It is found next to the SN.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  No one else who worked there ever said to the authorities that the bag they believed contained the rifle used to assassinate the president was just ordinary paper for wrapping books.  It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 03:02:18 PM
As usual you can't follow along.  That is the bag your contrarian brother suggests is just ordinary "paper for wrapping books."  Suggesting it was not suspicious and could have been used for some work-related purpose. HA HA HA.  Do you believe that a three foot plus long bag taped like that was being used to wrap books?  Have you seen pictures of any similar looking bags in the TSBD?  Did any other TSBD employee ever provide an explanation for that bag or suggested it was the type of bag that they used in the course of their business?  Wow.  It is a singular bag.  It is found next to the SN.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  No one else who worked there ever said to the authorities that the bag they believed contained the rifle used to assassinate the president was just ordinary paper for wrapping books.  It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

Repeating the same crap over and over again isn't going to yield a different response.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used to carry the rifle, when you haven't got a shred of evidence for it. Your opinions aren't evidence.

Have you figured out already who the other prints found on the bag belong to?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 03:16:24 PM
where out I ever claimed that I could actually prove anything here.

Which only means that whatever idiotic claim you make it is completely worthless and insignificant.

Thanks for making that clear  Thumb1:

Your opinions are not proof of anything, Mr Barrister-Wannabe.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 03:20:20 PM
Your opinions are not proof of anything, Mr Barrister-Wannabe.

Never said they were. Got any more nonsense in store?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 03:26:14 PM
Never said they were. Got any more nonsense in store?

No need. You lot have that market cornered.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 05, 2021, 03:30:49 PM
Repeating the same crap over and over again isn't going to yield a different response.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used to carry the rifle, when you haven't got a shred of evidence for it. Your opinions aren't evidence.

Have you figured out already who the other prints found on the bag belong to?

Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 04:08:33 PM
Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.

The honest answer is that I have no idea, and nor do you! Although it seems unlikely that the purpose of the bag was to wrap books. It doesn't even matter, because if the bag was not used for ordinary TSBD business, it still doesn't mean that it must have have been used to bring in the MC rifle.

Unless you can show that the bag was used to bring in the MC rifle, all you have is an insignificant bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, with multiple unidentified prints on it and allegedly two prints belonging to Oswald, who happened to work at the TSBD.

So, before you start jumping to flawed conclusions, you might want to consider the possibility that somebody else, other than Oswald, made the bag, for whatever reason, and that some of the other prints got on the bag when people picked it up to move it. You also may want to consider why Lt Day made a duplicate bag and who sent a similar bag in the mail to Oswald at a non-existing address.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 05, 2021, 05:08:25 PM
Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.
Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 05, 2021, 05:20:37 PM
Didja' ever notice that Mr Galbraith runs away from the challenge of explaining this document? Every single time.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Bumped for the ever-smug and ever-chicken Mr Galbraith!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2021, 05:25:28 PM
Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Another pathetic whine. This is not about defending Oswald. It's about the veracity and validity of the evidence (read; assumptions) people like you present as if they are fact, when in truth you've got nothing to support whatever claim you're making against Oswald.

Your comparision with the Lincoln murder is as naive as it is misplaced.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind.

Speak for yourself! The fact that you believe something doesn't mean it's true. It's easier to fool somebody than convince them they have been fooled.

They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Disappearing events due to denial? Really? Are you serious.... This is not about making events disappear (whatever the hell than means). It's about the (lack of) quality of the evidence. Perhaps you long for the days that a simple accusation was enough to get a man hanged, but those who, unlike you, live in the present understand that you can not make stuff up and accuse somebody without evidence.

Instead of constantly complaining how people do not take your word for it that Oswald is guilty, why don't you try for once to actually answer a question asked about the "evidence"?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 09:26:45 PM
Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Are you sure these oswald-loving barrister-wannabes are worthy of anything more than mockery?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2021, 09:48:29 PM
Bla bla bla... All you've got is opinions.

In the form of good-natured insights. Clever, cut-to-the-quick insights I might add. While you lot remain terminally grumpy. With faces buried in seemingly endless word-smorgasbords.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 06, 2021, 08:14:27 PM
Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books

That's not Oswald's bag. Buell Frazier, the only witness who saw the bag, denied on Friday evening 11/22/63 that this was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry and he is still saying the same thing to this day.

Stop making up stuff!

Buell said that he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove Oswald to work.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 06, 2021, 11:03:31 PM
Buell said that he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove the Oswald to work.

Oh, so that's why he's been denying all these years that he drove Mr Oswald to work that morning.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 07, 2021, 12:56:33 AM
Oh, so that's why he's been denying all these years that he drove Mr Oswald to work that morning.

Sarcasm is a very poor counter argument Mr F...     Totally ineffective and it aids the person you are debating.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 07, 2021, 04:37:26 AM
Oh, so that's why he's been denying all these years that he drove Mr Oswald to work that morning.

Big difference between being remembered for driving Oswald to the killing field with a long bag that was reported as being too small to contain a rifle, as opposed to if it was indeed long enough and reported as such.


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2021, 01:12:48 PM
Big difference between being remembered for driving Oswald to the killing field with a long bag that was reported as being too small to contain a rifle, as opposed to if it was indeed long enough and reported as such.

Big difference between a bag too small to contain a rifle but the perfect length to contain curtain rods, and one long enough to contain either. Unfortunately for your fairy tale, Mr Frazier saw the former that morning.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 07, 2021, 02:31:41 PM
Big difference between a bag too small to contain a rifle but the perfect length to contain curtain rods, and one long enough to contain either. Unfortunately for your fairy tale, Mr Frazier saw the former that morning.

Big difference between Oswald telling Buell he was carrying curtain rods in the bag then telling the cops that he was carrying his lunch in said bag. A safe size to report when wanting to minimize one's perceived involvement going forward.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 07, 2021, 10:58:24 PM
Big difference between a bag too small to contain a rifle but the perfect length to contain curtain rods, and one long enough to contain either. Unfortunately for your fairy tale, Mr Frazier saw the former that morning.

Lee Oswald did not need curtain rods. He never complained to his landlady about a lack of curtains in his rented room. His "alcove" (room) at the North Beckley boarding house had curtains in place and Venetian blinds. There is no evidence that Lee Oswald was contemplating a career as an interior decorator.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2021, 11:27:55 PM
Lee Oswald did not need curtain rods. He never complained to his landlady about a lack of curtains in his rented room. His "alcove" (room) at the North Beckley boarding house had curtains in place and Venetian blinds. There is no evidence that Lee Oswald was contemplating a career as an interior decorator.

Oh boy, when are you guys going to focus on something less speculative and far more relevant to the case?

The fact that Oswald was staying at a roominghouse does not preclude him bringing curtain roads on Friday morning. He asked Marina to move back in with him, which obviously couldn't have happened at the roominghouse. So, for all we know, he may well have been looking for an appartment prior to his trip to Irving and brought the curtain rods for that. Another possibility is that he simply lied to Frazier, instead of telling that 19 year old kid, that he was really going to Irving to make up with his wife. Yet another possibility is that he did somebody a favor (without knowing he was being manipulated) to pick up some curtain rods, which were collected by the person involved some time in the morning of Friday 11/22/63.

It really makes very little difference what really was in the bag. If it wasn't the MC rifle, the whole paper bag matter is completely insignificant. So, rather than speculate about what wasn't in the bag, can you or anybody of your ilk provide a shred of evidence to show that there actually was a rifle in that bag? I seriously doubt it!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 12:11:19 AM
Oh boy, when are you guys going to focus on something less speculative and far more relevant to the case?

The fact that Oswald was staying at a roominghouse does not preclude him bringing curtain roads on Friday morning. He asked Marina to move back in with him, which obviously couldn't have happened at the roominghouse. So, for all we know, he may well have been looking for an appartment prior to his trip to Irving and brought the curtain rods for that. Another possibility is that he simply lied to Frazier, instead of telling that 19 year old kid, that he was really going to Irving to make up with his wife. Yet another possibility is that he did somebody a favor (without knowing he was being manipulated) to pick up some curtain rods, which were collected by the person involved some time in the morning of Friday 11/22/63.

It really makes very little difference what really was in the bag. If it wasn't the MC rifle, the whole paper bag matter is completely insignificant. So, rather than speculate about what wasn't in the bag, can you or anybody of your ilk provide a shred of evidence to show that there actually was a rifle in that bag? I seriously doubt it!

S P E C U L A T I O N

Unjustified speculation!  ???
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 12:31:18 AM
Lee Oswald did not need curtain rods. He never complained to his landlady about a lack of curtains in his rented room. His "alcove" (room) at the North Beckley boarding house had curtains in place and Venetian blinds. There is no evidence that Lee Oswald was contemplating a career as an interior decorator.

'interior decorator'

Well, an army buddy did mention that Oswald was effeminate, so.. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 12:34:02 AM
S P E C U L A T I O N

Unjustified speculation!  ???

Of course it is speculation, just like the crap you present. That was the entire point I was making.

Or did you think that when you speculate it suddenly becomes evidence?

P A T H E T I C.   :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 12:50:05 AM
Of course it is speculation, just like the crap you present. That was the entire point I was making.

Or did you think that when you speculate it suddenly becomes evidence?

P A T H E T I C.   :D

My statement about Lee Oswald "interior decorator" is obviously satirical.

Your speculation is serious, or is it?

There is such a thing as "justified" speculation. Things we don't know but can guess based on known or likely prior events.

For example:

-- Where was Oswald going after he left the rooming-house at North Beckley?

-- Would Oswald have been "involved" in the assassination of President Kennedy had Marina agreed to reconcile with him on the evening of 21 November 1963?

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story (attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald) is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 12:56:16 AM
My statement about Lee Oswald "interior decorator" is obviously satirical.

Your speculation is serious, or is it?

There is such a thing as "justified" speculation. Things we don't know but can guess based on known or likely prior events.

For example:

-- Where was Oswald going after he left the rooming-house at North Beckley?

-- Would Oswald have been "involved" in the assassination of President Kennedy had Marina agreed to reconcile with him on the evening of 21 November 1963?

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

What's not speculative is that two curtain rods were submitted to DPD Crime Scene Search Section lab on 3/15/64 to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

If I were to speculate that you, Mr Lidell, can't explain the above documented fact, how would you prove my speculation wrong?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:03:00 AM
@Ross

L'adorateur d'Oswald Mr Weidmann passe beaucoup trop de temps avec ses seuls amis: Tom Collins, Jim Beam et Jack Daniels. Et bizarre qu'il se plaint toujours des gens qui spéculent; et sur une plateforme de discussion rien de moins.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 01:03:14 AM
My statement about Lee Oswald "interior decorator" is obviously satirical.

Your speculation is serious, or is it?

There is such a thing as "justified" speculation. Things we don't know but can guess based on known or likely prior events.

For example:

-- Where was Oswald going after he left the rooming-house at North Beckley?

-- Would Oswald have been "involved" in the assassination of President Kennedy had Marina agreed to reconcile with him on the evening of 21 November 1963?

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

Your speculation is serious, or is it?

Do you really need to ask?

There is such a thing as "justified" speculation. Things we don't know but can guess based on known or likely prior events.

There is also something like biased speculation.

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

The only reason why there is no evidence that Oswald looked for an apartment is because the WC narrative determined what we were supposed to know. Yet, from Marina's testimony we do know that he wanted to live with her again, which is something he could not have done at Beckley. In other words, if what Marina said is true, it follows that he must have been looking for a place.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

Too bad that all we know is what the WC wanted us to know. The WC is to blame for fact that it was never investigated. My reply basically showed that there could have been an innocent explanation for the curtain rods, if that was in fact what Oswald brought to the TSBD.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

Sure it is, and let me guess... in no way are you biased, right?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 01:09:12 AM
@Ross

L'adorateur d'Oswald Mr Weidmann passe beaucoup trop de temps avec ses seuls amis: Tom Collins, Jim Beam et Jack Daniels. Et bizarre qu'il se plaint toujours des gens qui spéculent; et sur une plateforme de discussion rien de moins.

Actually my "best friend" is Soberano, although I do appreciate a good Tom Collins from time to time.

Did you think I did not understand French, Cońo ?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:11:02 AM
Of course it is speculation, just like the crap you present. That was the entire point I was making.

Or did you think that when you speculate it suddenly becomes evidence?

P A T H E T I C.   :D

O S W A L D  -  L O V E R   :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 01:17:14 AM
O S W A L D  -  L O V E R   :D

H A T E R O F T R U T H A N D F A C T S   Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:36:48 AM
Actually my "best friend" is Soberano, although I do appreciate a good Tom Collins from time to time.

Did you think I did not understand French, Cońo ?

"Cońo"

That's not French
And I doubt that you've been anywhere near one
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:40:32 AM
H A T E R O F T R U T H A N D F A C T S   Thumb1:

N E I T H E R   O  F   W H I C H   Y O U   L O T   P O S S E S S   :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 02:46:50 AM
What's not speculative is that two curtain rods were submitted to DPD Crime Scene Search Section lab on 3/15/64 to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

If I were to speculate that you, Mr Lidell, can't explain the above documented fact, how would you prove my speculation wrong?

 Thumb1:


Unless the curtain rods could be proved to have been in the paper bag that Lee Oswald carried on the morning of 22 November 1963, the "documented fact" is immaterial.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 02:54:40 AM

Unless the curtain rods could be proved to have been in the paper bag that Lee Oswald carried on the morning of 22 November 1963, the "documented fact" is immaterial.

Sorry, Mr Lidell, unless you can offer a good reason why two curtain rods would be submitted 3/15/64 for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, you don't get to declare this documented fact immaterial.

So-------what you got?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 03:05:32 AM
Your speculation is serious, or is it?

Do you really need to ask?

There is such a thing as "justified" speculation. Things we don't know but can guess based on known or likely prior events.

There is also something like biased speculation.

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

The only reason why there is no evidence that Oswald looked for an apartment is because the WC narrative determined what we were supposed to know. Yet, from Marina's testimony we do know that he wanted to live with her again, which is something he could not have done at Beckley. In other words, if what Marina said is true, it follows that he must have been looking for a place.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

Too bad that all we know is what the WC wanted us to know. The WC is to blame for fact that it was never investigated. My reply basically showed that there could have been an innocent explanation for the curtain rods, if that was in fact what Oswald brought to the TSBD.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

Sure it is, and let me guess... in no way are you biased, right?

The fact that Oswald was staying at a roominghouse does not preclude him bringing curtain roads on Friday morning. He asked Marina to move back in with him, which obviously couldn't have happened at the roominghouse. So, for all we know, he may well have been looking for an appartment prior to his trip to Irving and brought the curtain rods for that.

Lee Oswald never told Marina he been "looking for an apartment" (past tense). Correct me if I'm wrong: Marina testified (WC) that Lee said he would get an apartment the next week (future tense) and buy her a washing machine. It was a promise (an intention).

Additionally: Wouldn't Lee Oswald secure the apartment (sign a contract) first before obtaining curtain rods for it?

Again I say with all undue respect: You are engaging in unjustified S  P  E C U L A T I O N .

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 03:06:57 AM
Sorry, Mr Lidell, unless you can offer a good reason why two curtain rods would be submitted 3/15/64 for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, you don't get to declare this documented fact immaterial.

So-------what you got?

The Dallas cops were being excessively thorough.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 03:12:25 AM
The Dallas cops were being excessively thorough.

You're being excessively vague, Mr Lidell.

Why exactly would 'the Dallas cops' (actually an SS agent) want to test two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's prints 3/15/64? What would be the point of such a test?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 08, 2021, 03:20:30 AM
The fact that Oswald was staying at a roominghouse does not preclude him bringing curtain roads on Friday morning. He asked Marina to move back in with him, which obviously couldn't have happened at the roominghouse. So, for all we know, he may well have been looking for an appartment prior to his trip to Irving and brought the curtain rods for that.

Lee Oswald never told Marina he been "looking for an apartment" (past tense). Correct me if I'm wrong: Marina testified (WC) that Lee said he would get an apartment the next week (future tense) and buy her a washing machine. It was a promise (an intention).

Additionally: Wouldn't Lee Oswald secure the apartment (sign a contract) first before obtaining curtain rods for it?

Again I say with all undue respect: You are engaging in unjustified S  P  E C U L A T I O N .
How would Oswald know he needed curtain rods - only two - for an apartment that he had not even looked at?

You are correct about him not telling Marina he had looked for an apartment. Here is Marina's testimony about the apartment issue that he raised on that Thursday before the assassination:

Mrs. OSWALD. He was upset over the fact that I would not answer him. He tried to start a conversation with me several times, but I would not answer. And he said that he didn't want me to be angry at him because this upsets him.
On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that
he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas.
He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said it would be better if I remained with Ruth until the holidays, he would come, and we would all meet together. That this was better because while he was living alone and I stayed with Ruth, we were spending less money. And I told him to buy me a washing machine, because two children it became too difficult to wash by hand.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said he would buy me a washing machine.

Remember that he left nearly all of his money - $170 - the morning of the assassination with Marina. He had less than $20 with him when arrested (I can't recall the exact total).

Marina's relevant testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 03:24:10 AM
You're being excessively vague, Mr Lidell.

Why exactly would 'the Dallas cops' (actually an SS agent) want to test two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's prints 3/15/64? What would be the point of such a test?

I must stop multi-tasking. Neither can be given 100% concentration.

Correction: The Secret Service was being excessively thorough.

In other words: Trying to rule out Oswald's curtain rods story being true. What else?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 03:39:01 AM
I must stop multi-tasking. Neither can be given 100% concentration.

I hear you!  Thumb1:

Quote
Correction: The Secret Service was being excessively thorough.

In other words: Trying to rule out Oswald's curtain rods story being true. What else?

OK, but curtain rods found in the Paine garage would already be ruled out as being curtain rods brought to work by Mr Oswald. So whether or not those rods might happen to have his fingerprints would be completely immaterial. Right?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 04:51:36 AM
I must stop multi-tasking. Neither can be given 100% concentration.

Correction: The Secret Service was being excessively thorough.

In other words: Trying to rule out Oswald's curtain rods story being true. What else?

Exactly. Think of the uproar that would ensue if the FBI hadn't looked for Oswald curtain-rod fingerprints. Done to keep someone from asking later on 'why didn't you do it?
'
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Ross Lidell on February 08, 2021, 04:52:54 AM
I hear you!  Thumb1:

OK, but curtain rods found in the Paine garage would already be ruled out as being curtain rods brought to work by Mr Oswald. So whether or not those rods might happen to have his fingerprints would be completely immaterial. Right?

It does seem unnecessary to have tested "the rods" for fingerprints.

Oswald thought he was carrying the curtain roads in his 11.22.63 package. He had inadvertently put the Carcano rifle in the package instead. That would explain why the curtain rods were at the Paine's not at the TSBD. When Oswald realised the package was too heavy to be the curtain roads, he opened it (at the TSBD) and found the rifle. Result: "I guess I'll shoot the President when he drives by".

Help me, I'm "trollifying"!!!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 12:08:23 PM
"Cońo"

That's not French
And I doubt that you've been anywhere near one

That's not French

So you figured that out, did you? Good for you...

When you start communicating in a language you (mistakenly) believe I do not understand, I can do the same!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 12:16:39 PM
The fact that Oswald was staying at a roominghouse does not preclude him bringing curtain roads on Friday morning. He asked Marina to move back in with him, which obviously couldn't have happened at the roominghouse. So, for all we know, he may well have been looking for an appartment prior to his trip to Irving and brought the curtain rods for that.

Lee Oswald never told Marina he been "looking for an apartment" (past tense). Correct me if I'm wrong: Marina testified (WC) that Lee said he would get an apartment the next week (future tense) and buy her a washing machine. It was a promise (an intention).

Additionally: Wouldn't Lee Oswald secure the apartment (sign a contract) first before obtaining curtain rods for it?

Again I say with all undue respect: You are engaging in unjustified S  P  E C U L A T I O N .

Lee Oswald never told Marina he been "looking for an apartment" (past tense). Correct me if I'm wrong: Marina testified (WC) that Lee said he would get an apartment the next week (future tense) and buy her a washing machine. It was a promise (an intention). 

Another pathetic argument. First of all you have no idea what Lee told Marina. Just because something wasn't recalled in her testimony, doesn't automatically mean that it wasn't said. It's a mere minor detail that is easy to forget. Secondly, when you tell somebody that you will get an apartment next week, doesn't that imply that you have been (and maybe still are) looking for an apartment? Of course it does. The possibility of finding a rental apartment on the same day that you decide to look for one is extremely remote!

Additionally: Wouldn't Lee Oswald secure the apartment (sign a contract) first before obtaining curtain rods for it?

Possibly. But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later. But I don't really believe for a second that the apartment thing had anything to do with him bringing curtain rods (if that's what he brought) for the simply reason that if the curtain rods were indeed for his own use, they would have been found at the TSBD. Speculation is fun but it doesn't get you very far.

Again I say with all undue respect: You are engaging in unjustified S  P  E C U L A T I O N .

Again:  So are you!

The difference between us is that when I speculate, I freely admit it. You, on the other hand, speculate and somehow feel it's evidence when it is clearly not!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:13:40 PM
That's not French

So you figured that out, did you? Good for you...

When you start communicating in a language you (mistakenly) believe I do not understand, I can do the same!

In your seemingly permanently tipsy state, you have once again gotten my intent wrong. No need to try misleading anybody. In fact, the names referred to actually pop more if anything. And that was my intent.

And I studied French in school since in Canada, French is our second language.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 01:30:55 PM
Lee Oswald never told Marina he been "looking for an apartment" (past tense). Correct me if I'm wrong: Marina testified (WC) that Lee said he would get an apartment the next week (future tense) and buy her a washing machine. It was a promise (an intention). 

Another pathetic argument. First of all you have no idea what Lee told Marina. Just because something wasn't recalled in her testimony, doesn't automatically mean that it wasn't said. It's a mere minor detail that is easily to forget. Secondly, when you tell somebody that you will get an apartment next week, doesn't that imply that you have been (and maybe still are) looking for an apartment? Of course it does. The possibility of finding a rental apartment on the same day that you decide to look for one is extremely remote!

Additionally: Wouldn't Lee Oswald secure the apartment (sign a contract) first before obtaining curtain rods for it?

Possibly. But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later. But I don't really believe for a second that the apartment thing had anything to do with him bringing curtain rods (if that's what he brought) for the simply reason that if the curtain rods were indeed for his own use, they would have been found at the TSBD. Speculation is fun but it doesn't get you very far.

Again I say with all undue respect: You are engaging in unjustified S  P  E C U L A T I O N .

Again:  So are you!

The difference between us is that when I speculate, I freely admit it. You, on the other hand, speculate and somehow feel it's evidence when it is clearly not!

This is a discussion platform, not your personal court-of-law. If it was a court of law, you and your tag team attack-dog buddy JudgeJohnny would have your ridiculously high standard-of-proof cop-outs reigned-in right quick.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 03:23:08 PM

In your seemingly permanently tipsy state, you have once again gotten my intent wrong. No need to try misleading anybody. In fact, the names referred to actually pop more if anything. And that was my intent.

And I studied French in school since in Canada, French is our second language.

And I studied French in school since in Canada, French is our second language.

Really? Pfffff ........ you really think you need to point out that Canada is bilingual?

In your seemingly permanently tipsy state, you have once again gotten my intent wrong. No need to try misleading anybody. In fact, the names referred to actually pop more if anything. And that was my intent.

Not sure what you are rambling on about, but your intent to write a message to Ross in French on an English forum (about me as a so-called "Oswald lover" who is spending too much time with my only friends, being alcoholic drinks) was clearly so that I would not understand the insult.

Too bad for you that I learned French in France a long time ago!

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 03:26:11 PM
This is a discussion platform, not your personal court-of-law. If it was a court of law, you and your tag team attack-dog buddy JudgeJohnny would have your ridiculously high standard-of-proof cop-outs reigned in right quick.

This is a discussion platform,

Says the guy who never ever discusses anything of any substance and tries to disrupt every conversation by others with infantile remarks.

The remainder of your post is just as worthless as just about every other post you write on this board.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 08, 2021, 03:51:13 PM

There's no evidence that Lee Oswald had inspected an apartment for rent and observed there were no curtains in a room. You just implied this to construct a negative reply.

Based on all that we know: Oswald did not need curtains and therefore did not need curtain rods.

In my opinion: The curtain rod story (attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald) is indicative of a pre-crime "consciousness of guilt".

Even if Oswald had been looking at apartments (and there is zero evidence of such) would he really be in a rush to obtain curtain rods?  That is absurd.  The lengths those contrarian nuts will go to defend Oswald is laughable.  Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in!  When he could have just as easily waited another day to get them per his usual schedule.  I honestly can't believe anyone can spin a yarn like that with a straight face.  Oswald lied about the contents of his bag either to Frazier or the DPD.  Why would he lie to the police unless the contents were incriminatory?  If they had been exculpatory, he would have just said that he brought some curtain rods and directed the police to the bag.  Frazier could have corroborated that story.  Instead we get this outlandish and baseless tale where Oswald is somehow obtaining curtain rods for an apartment he doesn't yet live in and then lying about that to the DPD when it would have helped him to tell the truth.  Absurd. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 05:34:40 PM
Even if Oswald had been looking at apartments (and there is zero evidence of such) would he really be in a rush to obtain curtain rods?  That is absurd.  The lengths those contrarian nuts will go to defend Oswald is laughable.  Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in!  When he could have just as easily waited another day to get them per his usual schedule.  I honestly can't believe anyone can spin a yarn like that with a straight face.  Oswald lied about the contents of his bag either to Frazier or the DPD.  Why would he lie to the police unless the contents were incriminatory?  If they had been exculpatory, he would have just said that he brought some curtain rods and directed the police to the bag.  Frazier could have corroborated that story.  Instead we get this outlandish and baseless tale where Oswald is somehow obtaining curtain rods for an apartment he doesn't yet live in and then lying about that to the DPD when it would have helped him to tell the truth.  Absurd.

The only absurdity so far has been your explanation of the fact that two curtain rods were submitted 3/15/64 to the Crime Scene Search Section lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints and were not released until 3/24/64.

Let's remind ourselves of your genius explanation, Mr Smith--------------------

a) Nothing to see here, they just got the submission date wrong on the form!
b) Nothing to see here, they just got the release date wrong on the form too!


 :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 06:17:27 PM
Even if Oswald had been looking at apartments (and there is zero evidence of such) would he really be in a rush to obtain curtain rods?  That is absurd.  The lengths those contrarian nuts will go to defend Oswald is laughable.  Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in!  When he could have just as easily waited another day to get them per his usual schedule.  I honestly can't believe anyone can spin a yarn like that with a straight face.  Oswald lied about the contents of his bag either to Frazier or the DPD.  Why would he lie to the police unless the contents were incriminatory?  If they had been exculpatory, he would have just said that he brought some curtain rods and directed the police to the bag.  Frazier could have corroborated that story.  Instead we get this outlandish and baseless tale where Oswald is somehow obtaining curtain rods for an apartment he doesn't yet live in and then lying about that to the DPD when it would have helped him to tell the truth.  Absurd.

Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in! 

Here we see a good example of how "Richard" misrepresents what was really said into a strawman.

This is what I actually said;


"But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later. But I don't really believe for a second that the apartment thing had anything to do with him bringing curtain rods (if that's what he brought) for the simply reason that if the curtain rods were indeed for his own use, they would have been found at the TSBD. Speculation is fun but it doesn't get you very far."


How does it feel to have so much egg on your face?

I honestly can't believe anyone can spin a yarn like that with a straight face.

You shouldn't be using the word "honestly" as the only one spinning a yarn with a straight face is you!

Instead we get this outlandish and baseless tale where Oswald is somehow obtaining curtain rods for an apartment he doesn't yet live in and then lying about that to the DPD when it would have helped him to tell the truth.  Absurd.

What is truly absurd is that you can't argue with what really was said, so you make up your own strawman version so you can make a totally bogus comment.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 08, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in! 

Here we see a good example of how "Richard" misrepresents what was really said into a strawman.

This is what I actually said;

How does it feel to have so much egg on your face?

I honestly can't believe anyone can spin a yarn like that with a straight face.

You shouldn't be using the word "honestly" as the only one spinning a yarn with a straight face is you!

Instead we get this outlandish and baseless tale where Oswald is somehow obtaining curtain rods for an apartment he doesn't yet live in and then lying about that to the DPD when it would have helped him to tell the truth.  Absurd.

What is truly absurd is that you can't argue with what really was said, so you make up your own strawman version so you can make a totally bogus comment.

So many words to backpeddle.  You stated:  "But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later."  If you don't believe that is a possible explanation for his curtain rod story, then why even raise it?  Take it up with yourself if you think that suggestion is idiotic.   You're the one who made it.  In addition, Oswald had no "friend" who asked him to carry curtain rods as you stupidly also indicated might be an explanation.  Those are baseless and idiotic suggestions in a desperate attempt to explain away his long bag and lie to Frazier.  If you have some dim realization of the stupidity of your own suggestions, then congratulations.  You got one thing right.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 08, 2021, 06:35:34 PM
The only absurdity so far has been your explanation of the fact that two curtain rods were submitted 3/15/64 to the Crime Scene Search Section lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints and were not released until 3/24/64.

Let's remind ourselves of your genius explanation, Mr Smith--------------------

a) Nothing to see here, they just got the submission date wrong on the form!
b) Nothing to see here, they just got the release date wrong on the form too!


 :D

Have you contacted the NY Times with this form since it constitutes evidence of a conspiracy to kill the President?  That is what you believe - right?  You are not just some loon exercising a compulsion disorder on the Internet but have uncovered "evidence" of a conspiracy that others have been seeking for over 50 years.  I can't wait to read the front page story.  Any day now.....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 07:00:35 PM
So many words to backpeddle.  You stated:  "But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later."  If you don't believe that is a possible explanation for his curtain rod story, then why even raise it?  Take it up with yourself if you think that suggestion is idiotic.   You're the one who made it.  In addition, Oswald had no "friend" who asked him to carry curtain rods as you stupidly also indicated might be an explanation.  Those are baseless and idiotic suggestions in a desperate attempt to explain away his long bag and lie to Frazier.  If you have some dim realization of the stupidity of your own suggestions, then congratulations.  You got one thing right.

So many words to backpeddle. 

The only one backpeddling is you... desperately trying to somehow justify your stupid screw up..

You stated:  "But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later."  If you don't believe that is a possible explanation for his curtain rod story, then why even raise it?

First of all, I know what I have stated. I don't need a liar like you to still try to spin it. Secondly, I raised it in a discussion with Ross Lidell, who constantly tries to pass his speculation of as somehow factual. The point of the comment was to show him how easy it is to speculate. Clearly you haven't followed the discussion otherwise you would have known that. That of course means that you just jumped in the conversation with a pathetic strawman argument while being clueless about what was being discussed. Classic "Richard Smith" stuff!  :D

In addition, Oswald had no "friend" who asked him to carry curtain rods as you stupidly also indicated might be an explanation.

Just because you don't know that he had a friend, doesn't mean he didn't have one, you fool! You have no way of knowing if he had friends and who they were. Once again you are trying to pass of your own pathetic opinion of as factual, and as per usual you're doing it without having anything to support that claim.

Those are baseless and idiotic suggestions in a desperate attempt to explain away his long bag and lie to Frazier. 

You really are pathetically stupid, aren't you? I don't have to explain away his "long bag". I have two witnesses who actually saw the bag and both said it wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. You, on the other hand, have not a shred of evidence to show that the bag "found" at the TSBD was the one Oswald carried and/or that it contained a rifle. In other words, take you speculative conjecture and put it somewhere where the sun doesn't shine!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 07:07:18 PM
And I studied French in school since in Canada, French is our second language.

Really? Pfffff ........ you really think you need to point out that Canada is bilingual?

In your seemingly permanently tipsy state, you have once again gotten my intent wrong. No need to try misleading anybody. In fact, the names referred to actually pop more if anything. And that was my intent.

Not sure what you are rambling on about, but your intent to write a message to Ross in French on an English forum (about me as a so-called "Oswald lover" who is spending too much time with my only friends, being alcoholic drinks) was clearly so that I would not understand the insult.

Too bad for you that I learned French in France a long time ago!

What's too bad for me? My point has been made perfectly clear.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 08, 2021, 07:12:25 PM
The only absurdity so far has been your explanation of the fact that two curtain rods were submitted 3/15/64 to the Crime Scene Search Section lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints and were not released until 3/24/64.

Let's remind ourselves of your genius explanation, Mr Smith--------------------

a) Nothing to see here, they just got the submission date wrong on the form!
b) Nothing to see here, they just got the release date wrong on the form too!


 :D

Not exactly pressing since Oswald stated he didn't bring curtain rods to work in the first place.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 09:03:22 PM
What's too bad for me? My point has been made perfectly clear.

You don't make points. Never have and never will...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 08, 2021, 09:04:38 PM
So many words to backpeddle. 

The only one backpeddling is you... desperately trying to somehow justify your stupid screw up..

You stated:  "But maybe he had already found an apartment that would become available a couple of days later."  If you don't believe that is a possible explanation for his curtain rod story, then why even raise it?

First of all, I know what I have stated. I don't need a liar like you to still try to spin it. Secondly, I raised it in a discussion with Ross Lidell, who constantly tries to pass his speculation of as somehow factual. The point of the comment was to show him how easy it is to speculate. Clearly you haven't followed the discussion otherwise you would have known that. That of course means that you just jumped in the conversation with a pathetic strawman argument while being clueless about what was being discussed. Classic "Richard Smith" stuff!  :D

In addition, Oswald had no "friend" who asked him to carry curtain rods as you stupidly also indicated might be an explanation.

Just because you don't know that he had a friend, doesn't mean he didn't have one, you fool! You have no way of knowing if he had friends and who they were. Once again you are trying to pass of your own pathetic opinion of as factual, and as per usual you're doing it without having anything to support that claim.

Those are baseless and idiotic suggestions in a desperate attempt to explain away his long bag and lie to Frazier. 

You really are pathetically stupid, aren't you? I don't have to explain away his "long bag". I have two witnesses who actually saw the bag and both said it wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. You, on the other hand, have not a shred of evidence to show that the bag "found" at the TSBD was the one Oswald carried and/or that it contained a rifle. In other words, take you speculative conjecture and put it somewhere where the sun doesn't shine!

We agree that you made several baseless and stupid explanations for Oswald's "curtain rods."  Why keep going on about the stupidity of your own suggestions?  Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD.  That means it got there.  Oswald worked in that building.  Oswald had access to the rifle.  A long, homemade bag with Oswald's prints was found next to fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no work-related explanation for that bags presence in the TSBD. Oswald's rifle was stored at the location from which he came that morning while carrying a long bag.  His rifle was gone from that location when the police searched that area later that day.  Oswald lied about owning any rifle despite the confirmation of his wife and photos of him holding a rifle.  He had no explanation for the presence of his rifle in that building.  Oswald lied to the police about carrying any such bag.  All of that adds up to a reasonable conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag that morning.  There is no credible basis to dispute that conclusion.  All the facts and logical inferences support that conclusion.  It is not necessary to have a time machine or for any witness to have had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of a bag as you stupidly suggest in a desperate attempt once again to apply an impossible standard of proof to any fact that you do not wish to acknowledge.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2021, 09:57:04 PM
We agree that you made several baseless and stupid explanations for Oswald's "curtain rods."  Why keep going on about the stupidity of your own suggestions?  Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD.  That means it got there.  Oswald worked in that building.  Oswald had access to the rifle.  A long, homemade bag with Oswald's prints was found next to fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no work-related explanation for that bags presence in the TSBD. Oswald's rifle was stored at the location from which he came that morning while carrying a long bag.  His rifle was gone from that location when the police searched that area later that day.  Oswald lied about owning any rifle despite the confirmation of his wife and photos of him holding a rifle.  He had no explanation for the presence of his rifle in that building.  Oswald lied to the police about carrying any such bag.  All of that adds up to a reasonable conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag that morning.  There is no credible basis to dispute that conclusion.  All the facts and logical inferences support that conclusion.  It is not necessary to have a time machine or for any witness to have had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of a bag as you stupidly suggest in a desperate attempt once again to apply an impossible standard of proof to any fact that you do not wish to acknowledge.

Why don't you make a song of this standard text, filled with half truths, assumptions and misrepresentations?

We agree that you made several baseless and stupid explanations for Oswald's "curtain rods."  Why keep going on about the stupidity of your own suggestions?

Stop making up stuff and blatantly showing off your ignorance.

All I have done is show Ross Lidell that speculation isn't getting him anywhere, but that went straight over your head.

All of that adds up to a reasonable conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag that morning.  There is no credible basis to dispute that conclusion.  All the facts and logical inferences support that conclusion.

All this is perfectly true, if...(and that's a big if) you assume first that Oswald is guilty and that everything else you said was true, factual and proven. Sadly it isn't, because as usual, you are working backwards and making stuff up as you go along;

A rifle was found at the TSBD, which I, "Richard Smith", believe belongs to Oswald, so Oswald must be the killer and he must have brought in the rifle and used the paper bag found at the TSBD to do it.

Instead of providing us with conclusive evidence for those claims, you provide us with massive speculations based on just one piece of physical evidence, being the rifle. And even that can only be tentatively linked to Oswald.

Your house of cards lacks foundation!

Btw, nice pivot away from your massive screw up! But don't worry, I won't press the point any further as I would be wasting my time. Being the fanatical Trump supporter you are tells us clearly that it's completely impossible to have any kind of normal and rational conversation with you. The biggest fool is the one who thinks he knows everything better than all others and that applies to you beyond question.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 08, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
We agree that you made several baseless and stupid explanations for Oswald's "curtain rods."  Why keep going on about the stupidity of your own suggestions?  Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD.  That means it got there.  Oswald worked in that building.  Oswald had access to the rifle.  A long, homemade bag with Oswald's prints was found next to fired bullet casings from his rifle.  There is no work-related explanation for that bags presence in the TSBD. Oswald's rifle was stored at the location from which he came that morning while carrying a long bag.  His rifle was gone from that location when the police searched that area later that day.  Oswald lied about owning any rifle despite the confirmation of his wife and photos of him holding a rifle.  He had no explanation for the presence of his rifle in that building.  Oswald lied to the police about carrying any such bag.  All of that adds up to a reasonable conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag that morning.  There is no credible basis to dispute that conclusion.  All the facts and logical inferences support that conclusion.  It is not necessary to have a time machine or for any witness to have had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of a bag as you stupidly suggest in a desperate attempt once again to apply an impossible standard of proof to any fact that you do not wish to acknowledge.

Two curtain rods were found after the assassination in a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. These rods were submitted to the lab for testing over a week before two curtain rods were extracted from Ms Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, and released from the lab the day after the extraction of two curtain rods from Ms Ruth Paine's garage.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2021, 03:32:50 AM
You don't make points. Never have and never will...

Here's a couple of points for ya, Mr Always Logged In: This forum ain't a court of law and your opinions ain't facts.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 09, 2021, 04:46:10 AM
The rods plausibly were found still in
The bag Oswald carried them
 and which bag he could have left in the front storage room by the front staircase TSBD entrance foyer.

The bag may have been a bag with Paines mailing address label stuck on it which Oswald simply took off the garage shelf to carry the rods in or which were in the bag to begin with,

I doubt blinds also were taken, as they were apparently none less in width than  30” which is Only 5” less than the criticized conventional WC bag that’s 8” above the shoulder line when carried with one end in palm of hand

Also, since Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald carrying bag with only one hand at the very top, that’s doubtful that roll of blinds would be carried  that way, especially If swinging the bag along near ground

The shortest length of rods are 2’3”= 27.5” and just 2 of them in bag would maybe give the impression the bag was “flimsy” as it’s a bit loose if it’s a bag that had originally also contained rolled curtain rods ordered  by mail by Mr or Mrs Paine

So rods 27.5 in length carried in a bag that originally DID have 30” blinds in it, and Oswald folded over the label end about 3-4 inches .. well.. there ya are: CASE solved :)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2021, 10:43:45 AM
Here's a couple of points for ya, Mr Always Logged In: This forum ain't a court of law and your opinions ain't facts.

Those are opinions, not points...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2021, 02:56:02 PM
Those are opinions, not points...

Stop squirming
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2021, 03:02:04 PM
Two curtain rods were found after the assassination in a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. These rods were submitted to the lab for testing over a week before two curtain rods were extracted from Ms Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, and released from the lab the day after the extraction of two curtain rods from Ms Ruth Paine's garage.

 Thumb1:

Yes, they were found in the Paine's garage where they had been since prior to the assassination.  They were assigned exhibit numbers by the WC.  Those exhibit numbers appear on the form that you post here every day.  So there is no doubt they are the same curtain rods.  Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD.  No one who worked there ever came forward and indicated that they found any curtain rods in that building.  Don't you think Frazier might have been interested in any such discovery?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 09, 2021, 06:19:07 PM
Yes, they were found in the Paine's garage where they had been since prior to the assassination.

 :D

Meanwhile back in the real world...........

Two curtain rods were submitted to the lab for testing over a week BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted from Ms Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, and released from the lab the day AFTER the extraction of two curtain rods from Ms Ruth Paine's garage.

Mr Smith needs to posit that not one but BOTH of the dates on the Crime Scene Search Section are 'mistaken'. Talk about desperation!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2021, 07:30:28 PM
Stop squirming

Stop being so desperate for attention.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2021, 07:38:19 PM
:D

Meanwhile back in the real world...........

Two curtain rods were submitted to the lab for testing over a week BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted from Ms Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, and released from the lab the day AFTER the extraction of two curtain rods from Ms Ruth Paine's garage.

Mr Smith needs to posit that not one but BOTH of the dates on the Crime Scene Search Section are 'mistaken'. Talk about desperation!

How can they have the same exhibit number but be different curtain rods?  Who found these curtain rods at the TSBD?  Any clue whatsoever?  Truly was not made aware of them but the authorities were?  And whoever this mystery person was, they have kept quite about finding Oswald's curtain rods for 50 plus years?  LOL.  What a narrative.  With the absolute kicker being that you believe the same authorities involved in framing Oswald and suppressing these curtain rods would, or their own motion, months after the fact bring them to light and even test them for Oswald's prints!  Wow.   And there is confusion with the dates on the form as demonstrated by the same form with a different 3/26 date. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2021, 07:56:37 PM
Stop being so desperate for attention.

Would you like some fries with that nothingburger? Stop dodging. And stop trying to pass off this forum as a court of law.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 10, 2021, 12:23:19 AM
How can they have the same exhibit number but be different curtain rods?

Who says the numbers 275 & 276 on the Crime Scene Search Section sheet, which records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15/64, are exhibit numbers?

And feel free to explain to us how exactly the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 came to be assigned to the other two curtain rods, i.e. those extracted on-the-record from the Paine garage 3/23/64. How exactly were those two numbers arrived at, Mr Smith? Go on, tell us, it's a hoot!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 10, 2021, 02:54:22 AM
Would you like some fries with that nothingburger? Stop dodging. And stop trying to pass off this forum as a court of law.

Stop being so desperate for attention.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 10, 2021, 06:08:14 AM
Stop being so desperate for attention.

Stop pretending that this forum is a court of law.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 08:49:02 PM
As usual you can't follow along.  That is the bag your contrarian brother suggests is just ordinary "paper for wrapping books." 

Are you suggesting that the paper that CE142 was made from was something other than paper from the wrapping table that was used to wrap books?  If so, that would be news to everybody.

Quote
Wow.  It is a singular bag.  It is found next to the SN.

Sure, and you have a photo with a dotted outline of a bag drawn on to prove it.   :D

Quote
  It has Oswald's prints on it.

And you have some evidence that this wrapping paper was taped into a "bag" prior to these alleged prints being placed on it?  Let's hear it.

Quote
It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

It is absurd to claim with ZERO evidence that a rifle was ever carried in it.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 08:51:12 PM
Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

No "lengths" are necessary.  You can either demonstrate that Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD or you cannot.

And you cannot.

Nobody cares about your Lincoln false equivalence.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 08:52:26 PM
In the form of good-natured insights. Clever, cut-to-the-quick insights I might add.

Wow, your delusions know no end.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 10, 2021, 08:55:34 PM
Who says the numbers 275 & 276 on the Crime Scene Search Section sheet, which records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15/64, are exhibit numbers?

And feel free to explain to us how exactly the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 came to be assigned to the other two curtain rods, i.e. those extracted on-the-record from the Paine garage 3/23/64. How exactly were those two numbers arrived at, Mr Smith? Go on, tell us, it's a hoot!

 Thumb1:

Are you really suggesting that the numbers 275 & 276 referenced on the crime scene form relating to two curtain rods could be something other than the exact same two numbers assigned by the WC to two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage?  Wow.   I know why you haven't taken this "evidence" to the NY Times but spend your time here.  Imagine spinning that nonsense to a sane person.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 08:55:51 PM
Lee Oswald did not need curtain rods. He never complained to his landlady about a lack of curtains in his rented room. His "alcove" (room) at the North Beckley boarding house had curtains in place and Venetian blinds. There is no evidence that Lee Oswald was contemplating a career as an interior decorator.

There is also no evidence that he carried a rifle in CE142 or any other container.

As for the room not needing curtain rods:

(https://jfkindex.com/photos/LHO-Room.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 08:58:39 PM
N E I T H E R   O  F   W H I C H   Y O U   L O T   P O S S E S S   :D

Says the guy who thought there was an "other Frazier" who threatened Buell Frazier.   :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 09:01:13 PM
Remember that he left nearly all of his money - $170 - the morning of the assassination with Marina.

How do you know that was "nearly all of his money"?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 09:05:55 PM
Even if Oswald had been looking at apartments (and there is zero evidence of such) would he really be in a rush to obtain curtain rods?  That is absurd.  The lengths those contrarian nuts will go to defend Oswald is laughable.  Here we are told by Martin that Oswald could have made a special trip to Irving on Thursday to obtain curtain rods for an apartment he wasn't even living in!

The point is that there is just as much evidence for this is there is for your assertion that he carried a rifle in a package and lied about curtain rods.

But then the lengths that these nuts will go to prosecute Oswald is laughable.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 09:17:17 PM
We agree that you made several baseless and stupid explanations for Oswald's "curtain rods."  Why keep going on about the stupidity of your own suggestions?

No, your strawman arguments are the things that are stupid.

Quote
  Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD.

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

Quote
  That means it got there.

Brilliant.

Quote
  Oswald worked in that building.

Also brilliant.

Quote
  Oswald had access to the rifle.

Bzzzt.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote
  A long, homemade bag with Oswald's prints was found next to fired bullet casings from his rifle.

Bzzzt.  You don't know where this was found, or when.

Quote
Oswald's rifle was stored at the location from which he came that morning while carrying a long bag.

Bzzzt.  You know know where CE139 "was stored" or that it was "Oswald's rifle".

Quote
  His rifle was gone from that location when the police searched that area later that day.

Bzzzt.  You don't know it was ever at "that location".

Quote
  Oswald lied about owning any rifle despite the confirmation of his wife and photos of him holding a rifle.

Bzzzt.  You have no evidence that Oswald owned any rifle at the time of the assassination.

Quote
Oswald lied to the police about carrying any such bag.

Bzzzt.  According to Fritz's later recollection, he merely "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  We don't know what he was specifically asked, nor what the specific answer was.  Fritz either relayed this description (accurately or inaccurately), or he possibly even handed CE142 to Oswald and told him that Frazier claimed he carried it in.

Quote
  All of that adds up to a reasonable conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag that morning.

No, actually it doesn't.  It's based on false premises and conjecture.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 10, 2021, 10:55:23 PM
Wow, your delusions know no end.

Says the Oswald grave-kneeler
Talk about delusions
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 10, 2021, 11:16:54 PM
No, your strawman arguments are the things that are stupid.

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

Brilliant.

Also brilliant.

Bzzzt.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

Bzzzt.  You don't know where this was found, or when.

Bzzzt.  You know know where CE139 "was stored" or that it was "Oswald's rifle".

Bzzzt.  You don't know it was ever at "that location".

Bzzzt.  You have no evidence that Oswald owned any rifle at the time of the assassination.

Bzzzt.  According to Fritz's later recollection, he merely "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  We don't know what he was specifically asked, nor what the specific answer was.  Fritz either relayed this description (accurately or inaccurately), or he possibly even handed CE142 to Oswald and told him that Frazier claimed he carried it in.

No, actually it doesn't.  It's based on false premises and conjecture.

Bzzzt

LOL

Y'all still plagued with them thar killer bees, Hoss?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 11:55:19 PM
Says the Oswald grave-kneeler

Says the guy who visits his father's grave.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2021, 11:57:09 PM
Bzzzt

LOL

Chapman thinking he produces "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

LOL
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 12:14:57 AM
Says the guy who visits his father's grave.

Yo, Austin.. here's your hero's coffin. Maybe get it and move in next door to the little prick when 'the time' comes...

(https://i.postimg.cc/YCb997s6/oswald-coffin.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 12:18:36 AM
Chapman thinking he produces "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

LOL

You cut out the part that's clever and cuts to the quick
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 11, 2021, 12:22:11 AM
Yo, Austin.. here's your hero's coffin. Maybe get it and move in next door to the little prick when 'the time' comes...

Gee Chapman, you couldn't afford a coffin for your father that was in better shape?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 01:08:35 AM
Gee Chapman, you couldn't afford a coffin for your father that was in better shape?

------------
GLOSSARY
------------

‘your hero’s coffin’  =  Lee Harvey Oswald’s coffin
'the little prick’  =  Lee Harvey Oswald
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2021, 08:11:48 AM
Are you really suggesting that the numbers 275 & 276 referenced on the crime scene form relating to two curtain rods could be something other than the exact same two numbers assigned by the WC to two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage?

Yes of course-------------the numbers 275 and 276 were deliberately assigned to the Paine garage curtain rods 3/23 in order to absorb the two curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints eight days earlier.

If you disagree, Mr Smith, perhaps you will be so kind as to explain just how it was the Paine garage curtain rods came to be named Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Why were those particular numbers chosen?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 04:40:53 PM
Yes of course-------------the numbers 275 and 276 were deliberately assigned to the Paine garage curtain rods 3/23 in order to absorb the two curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints eight days earlier.

If you disagree, Mr Smith, perhaps you will be so kind as to explain just how it was the Paine garage curtain rods came to be named Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Why were those particular numbers chosen?

 Thumb1:

This is getting very confusing. The exhibit numbers are generated by the WC at the moment when an item is entered into evidence. Ruth Paine continued her testimony at her house in Irving on 23 March 1964 at 7:30 PM with Secret Service Agent Howlett being present. It was during that testimony that two sets of curtain rods were entered into evidence as exhibits 275 and 276.

So, how can it be that Howlett presented those exact two sets of curtain rods and their exhibit numbers to the DPD Identification Bureau at 9:45 AM on 15 March 1964?

Is it really believable that the DPD not only got the date so wrong but also did not know the difference between 9:45 AM and 7:30 PM. I'm sure there is an explanation for all this, but to simply dismiss it as an error in date and time isn't very credible.

Having said that, it's also difficult to understand how Howlett could measure the two curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony on 23 March 1964, if those curtain rods - as the DPD document shows - were not collected from the DPD until the 24th or 26th March 1964, depending on which copy of the document you believe.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 05:39:35 PM
The point is that there is just as much evidence for this is there is for your assertion that he carried a rifle in a package and lied about curtain rods.

But then the lengths that these nuts will go to prosecute Oswald is laughable.

No need to go to any lengths to prosecute anybody here sport. This ain't a court of law despite to and your tag-team buddy desperately needing to pretend otherwise.

Anyway, Oswald did himself in, sport... he managed to look like the guy who killed Tippit.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2021, 06:43:15 PM
This is getting very confusing. The exhibit numbers are generated by the WC at the moment when an item is entered into evidence. Ruth Paine continued her testimony at her house in Irving on 23 March 1964 at 7:30 PM with Secret Service Agent Howlett being present. It was during that testimony that two sets of curtain rods were entered into evidence as exhibits 275 and 276.

Again, Mr Weidmann, look at Ms Paine's Irving testimony session and ask the question: how exactly were the numbers 275 and 276 chosen as the exhibit numbers?

Quote
So, how can it be that Howlett presented those exact two sets of curtain rods and their exhibit numbers to the DPD Identification Bureau at 9:45 AM on 15 March 1964?

The two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing 3/15 were NOT the same as the two curtain rods extracted from Ms Paine's garage 3/23

Quote
Is it really believable that the DPD not only got the date so wrong but also did not know the difference between 9:45 AM and 7:30 PM. I'm sure there is an explanation for all this, but to simply dismiss it as an error in date and time isn't very credible.

Having said that, it's also difficult to understand how Howlett could measure the two curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony on 23 March 1964, if those curtain rods - as the DPD document shows - were not collected from the DPD until the 24th or 26th March 1964, depending on which copy of the document you believe.

An important clue is contained in the UNCANNY coincidence between the measurement ("2 feet 3 1/2 inches" = 27.5 inches) and the exhibit number (275).
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 07:25:03 PM
Again, Mr Weidmann, look at Ms Paine's Irving testimony session and ask the question: how exactly were the numbers 275 and 276 chosen as the exhibit numbers?

The two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing 3/15 were NOT the same as the two curtain rods extracted from Ms Paine's garage 3/23

An important clue is contained in the UNCANNY coincidence between the measurement ("2 feet 3 1/2 inches" = 27.5 inches) and the exhibit number (275).

Again, Mr Weidmann, look at Ms Paine's Irving testimony session and ask the question: how exactly were the numbers 275 and 276 chosen as the exhibit numbers?

Why don't you save me the time and simply tell me, Mr. Ford?

All I can see is that Jenner allocated the two numbers to the exhibits in a manner not uncommon to other numbers being allocated during testimony. It is beyond my knowledge if the WC had already prepared a list of exhibits. Given the fact that lawyers normally don't take testimony without being prepared and knowing the answers to the questions they are going to ask, it is possible that they knew about the two curtain rods in advance. However, someting being possible doesn't mean it's certain.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 08:15:23 PM
Says the guy who thought there was an "other Frazier" who threatened Buell Frazier.   :D

Are you sure I don't know who threatened Frazier, Tex?

(https://i.postimg.cc/gkYn5q7f/fritz-interview-buell.png)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 08:50:43 PM
Are you sure I don't know who threatened Frazier, Tex?

(https://i.postimg.cc/gkYn5q7f/fritz-interview-buell.png)

All this shows is that you knew in 2018 that Fritz had threatend Buell Fazier, but that doesn't prove that you also knew that no man named Frazier had threatened Buell Frazier as you claimed recently.

Btw the desperate way you are trying to disprove something you said recently by a quote from 2018 that doesn't actually disprove anything suggests a massive need for recognition, which of course goes hand in hand with your similar desperation for attention.

Perhaps you should take it easy for a while.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 09:28:08 PM
All this shows is that you knew in 2018 that Fritz had threatend Buell Fazier, but that doesn't prove that you also knew that no man named Frazier had threatened Buell Frazier as you claimed recently.

Btw the desperate way you are trying to disprove something you said recently by a quote from 2018 that doesn't actually disprove anything suggests a massive need for recognition, which of course goes hand in hand with your similar desperation for attention.

Perhaps you should take it easy for a while.

I read there was no other man in that interview but Fritz threatening Buell
And f'n with the timeline to make it look like I claimed otherwise recently is just another one of your slimy tricks
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 09:35:46 PM
I read there was no other man in that interview but Fritz threatening Buell
And fn with the timeline to make it look like I claimed otherwise recently is just another one of your slimy tricks

So, when did Frazier threaten Buell Frazier, like you said he did?

And, if not recently, when was it then that you claimed Frazier had threatend Buell Frazier? Why not show us another screenshot?

Btw, I'm giving you a bit of the attention you so desperately want. Happy now?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 10:13:15 PM
So, when did Frazier threaten Buell Frazier, like you said he did?

And, if not recently, when was it then that you claimed Frazier had threatend Buell Frazier?* Why not show us another screenshot?

Btw, I'm giving you a bit of the attention you so desperately want. Happy now?

I'm always happy. And as long as I can still recognize myself in the mirror every morning, that's enough.


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 11, 2021, 10:35:46 PM
------------
GLOSSARY
------------

‘your hero’s coffin’  =  Lee Harvey Oswald’s coffin
'the little prick’  =  Lee Harvey Oswald

I don't need a Chapman-to-English dictionary, but thank you for your always useful input, Chapman-lover.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 11, 2021, 10:39:04 PM
No need to go to any lengths to prosecute anybody here sport. This ain't a court of law despite to and your tag-team buddy desperately needing to pretend otherwise.

In Chapman-fantasy-land, all he has to do is declare somebody a killer (or a prick) and like magic it just becomes true.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 11, 2021, 10:45:04 PM
Are you sure I don't know who threatened Frazier, Tex?

You sure didn't when you wrote this.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)

Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

Frazier wasn't paying attention to the bag. In the genpop view, he was the guy who drove the killer to the scene. Frazier didn't want to be known as the killer's chauffeur for the rest of his life.

The other Frazier threatened him physically, while the notorious vulture Henry Wade hovered overhead: Why help the cops throw you to the wolves, mulled Lillie Mae..
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 11:24:53 PM
You sure didn't when you wrote this.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)

Are you sure I didn't know that before that day? Are you sure I didn't log off, shut down, felt something wasn't quite right about what I said, figured it out but decided it wasn't worth booting up again after very little sleep the night before?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 11:27:06 PM
I'm always happy. And as long as I can still recognize myself in the mirror every morning, that's enough.

Argumentative and not answering the question. It's a good thing this isn't a court of law, Chapman, or you would be held in contempt.

And about the mirror; you buy a new one every day or do you keep them in storage?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2021, 11:31:01 PM
Are you sure I didn't know that before that day? Are you sure I didn't log off, shut down, felt something wasn't quite right about what I said, figured it out but decided it wasn't worth booting up again after very little sleep the night before?

Nah, with the rate by which you keep changing and editing your posts, I'd say such a scenario is highly unlikely. A far more credible explanation is that you really did believe that "the other Frazier" had threatened Buell Frazier.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2021, 11:52:23 PM
Nah, with the rate by which you keep changing and editing your posts, I'd say such a scenario is highly unlikely. A far more credible explanation is that you really did believe that "the other Frazier" had threatened Buell Frazier.

Well, that's what happened. And I edit on the fly. Not my bad that you get so excited when I show up here, Mr Always Logged In.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 12:23:05 AM
In Chapman-fantasy-land, all he has to do is declare somebody a killer (or a prick) and like magic it just becomes true.

I have the polls on my side
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLL: 68% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD ACTED LIKE AN ASSHOLE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON—More than 50 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Gallup poll published Thursday revealed that 68 percent of Americans now believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted like a total asshole.

“Remarkably, our polling data reveal that more than two-thirds of U.S. citizens are now convinced that Oswald acted like a complete prick in planning and carrying out the brutal shooting of JFK,” said Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, adding that of those surveyed, nearly half of respondents were sure or very sure that Oswald acted like a “huge f*cking jerk” in Dallas, attributing the shift in public perception to mounting evidence showing that camping out at the Texas Book Depository with the express intention of murdering the 35th U.S. president was “a total dick move.”

“Additionally, 11 percent said they initially gave Oswald the benefit of the doubt, but now believe with absolute certainty that this guy was just a jackass, pure and simple. Interestingly, 7 percent now say there might have even been a second asshole involved in the shooting.”

The survey also revealed that 18 percent of Americans were confident Oswald had acted “pretty damn cool.”*

*That would be you lot


Cite> The Onion
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 12, 2021, 12:28:14 AM
I have the polls on my side
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLL: 68% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD ACTED LIKE AN ASSHOLE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON—More than 50 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Gallup poll published Thursday revealed that 68 percent of Americans now believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted like a total asshole.

“Remarkably, our polling data reveal that more than two-thirds of U.S. citizens are now convinced that Oswald acted like a complete prick in planning and carrying out the brutal shooting of JFK,” said Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, adding that of those surveyed, nearly half of respondents were sure or very sure that Oswald acted like a “huge f*cking jerk” in Dallas, attributing the shift in public perception to mounting evidence showing that camping out at the Texas Book Depository with the express intention of murdering the 35th U.S. president was “a total dick move.”

“Additionally, 11 percent said they initially gave Oswald the benefit of the doubt, but now believe with absolute certainty that this guy was just a jackass, pure and simple. Interestingly, 7 percent now say there might have even been a second asshole involved in the shooting.”

The survey also revealed that 18 percent of Americans were confident Oswald had acted “pretty damn cool.”*

*That would be you lot


Cite> The Onion

Amazing!!   With all of the money and effort the government has spent on duping the pissants one might expect that 95% of the suckers would  "BELIEVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD ACTED LIKE AN ASSHOLE"   But 32% of those polled don't believe the lies.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 12:40:42 AM
I don't need a Chapman-to-English dictionary, but thank you for your always useful input, Chapman-lover.

There you go again, robbing other people's one-liners
Not one spark of wit between the whole sad, grumpy lot of you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2021, 12:41:29 AM
Are you sure I didn't know that before that day? Are you sure I didn't log off, shut down, felt something wasn't quite right about what I said, figured it out but decided it wasn't worth booting up again after very little sleep the night before?

(https://media.tenor.com/images/cf53e741abe02cefc1648c091e08b576/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2021, 12:43:54 AM
I have the polls on my side

I suppose cutting and pasting articles from The Onion is another example of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 12:46:00 AM
Amazing!!   With all of the money and effort the government has spent on duping the pissants one might expect that 95% of the suckers would  "BELIEVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD ACTED LIKE AN ASSHOLE"   But 32% of those polled don't believe the lies.

Remember when you said that ppl should be told when something is a spoof?
This is one of those times. 'The Onion' is a spoof site, Sherlock.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 12, 2021, 12:48:46 AM
Well, that's what happened. And I edit on the fly. Not my bad that you get so excited when I show up here, Mr Always Logged In.

A constant need to justify himself, in addition to a desperate need for attention. Man, you've got some serious issues there!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 01:18:54 AM
A constant need to justify himself, in addition to a desperate need for attention. Man, you've got some serious issues there!

So what happened to your recent promise to not pay attention to me?
Can you imagine the utter joy I feel seeing you come back?
This is the happiest day of my life!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 12, 2021, 02:10:58 AM
So what happened to your recent promise to not pay attention to me?
Can you imagine the utter joy I feel seeing you come back?
This is the happiest day of my life!

what happened to your recent promise to not pay attention to me?

Did I really promise that and to who?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 04:30:27 PM
Argumentative and not answering the question. It's a good thing this isn't a court of law, Chapman, or you would be held in contempt.

And about the mirror; you buy a new one every day or do you keep them in storage?

This doesn't have to be a court of law for you to hold ppl in contempt. You hold everybody in contempt.

And you're still not clever.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 12, 2021, 04:42:12 PM
This doesn't have to be a court of law for you to hold ppl in contempt. You hold everybody in contempt.

And you're still not clever.

You hold everybody in contempt.

Stop whining.

And you're still not clever.

Let me guess....  but you are, right?

Btw, I never said I was clever. That's just one of your many obsessions, which ties in perfectly with your desperate need to constantly prove and justify yourself....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2021, 07:37:37 PM
You hold everybody in contempt.

Stop whining.

And you're still not clever.

Let me guess....  but you are, right?

Btw, I never said I was clever. That's just one of your many obsessions, which ties in perfectly with your desperate need to constantly prove and justify yourself....

(https://images2.imgbox.com/df/e7/hqxPcODG_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 09:47:52 PM
You hold everybody in contempt.

Stop whining.

And you're still not clever.

Let me guess....  but you are, right?

Btw, I never said I was clever. That's just one of your many obsessions, which ties in perfectly with your desperate need to constantly prove and justify yourself....

'Stop whining'
> You first

'Let me guess....  but you are, right?'
> You don't have to guess

'Btw, I never said I was clever'
> And I suggest you never do

'That's just one of your many obsessions, which ties in perfectly with your desperate need to constantly prove and justify yourself....'
> The moth to the flame. Your obsession with me duly noted. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2021, 10:15:25 PM
I supposed cutting and pasting articles from The Onion is another example of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

It's 'copy/paste' in the digital age, cowboy.
And you can 'supposed' what you like, JudgeJohnny.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 12, 2021, 10:19:27 PM
'Stop whining'
> You first

'Let me guess....  but you are, right?'
> You don't have to guess

'Btw, I never said I was clever'
> And I suggest you never do

'That's just one of your many obsessions, which ties in perfectly with your desperate need to constantly prove and justify yourself....'
> The moth to the flame. Your obsession with me duly noted.

'Stop whining'
> You first


Me go first? Why? Are you under the mistaken delusion that I am whining?   :D
Stop arguing like a 5 year old!

But it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

'Btw, I never said I was clever'
> And I suggest you never do


And a suggestion from you is worth, what exactly?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 01:03:07 AM
'Stop whining'
> You first


Me go first? Why? Are you under the mistaken delusion that I am whining?   :D
Stop arguing like a 5 year old!

But it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

'Btw, I never said I was clever'
> And I suggest you never do


And a suggestion from you is worth, what exactly?

it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

 I doubt that our little Chappie will understand your logic Martin.....  But you nailed him.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 02:32:22 AM
'Stop whining'
> You first


Me go first? Why? Are you under the mistaken delusion that I am whining?   :D
Stop arguing like a 5 year old!

But it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

'Btw, I never said I was clever'
> And I suggest you never do


And a suggestion from you is worth, what exactly?

You're still not clever
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 02:40:33 AM
it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

 I doubt that our little Chappie will understand your logic Martin.....  But you nailed him.

Handy Guide to Walt's Fabrications by John Iacoletti
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.msg1042.html#msg1042
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 02:45:14 AM
Handy Guide to Walt's Fabrications by John Iacoletti
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.msg1042.html#msg1042

Thank you, little guy..... Now perhaps I won't need to keep repeating myself....  Any poster can simply use the list.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 02:52:37 AM
You're still not clever

But you are, right?   :D
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 02:58:25 AM
But you are, right?   :D

Being "clever" is important to our little Chappie....   It's an ego thing.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 03:10:59 AM
Being "clever" is important to our little Chappie....   It's an ego thing.

Indeed. That's what happens when insecure little men with an inferiority complex are desperately trying to prove and justify themselves. Like a hush puppy barking to a bull dog....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 03:36:37 AM
Indeed. That's what happens when insecure little men with an inferiority complex are desperately trying to prove and justify themselves. Like a hush puppy barking to a bull dog....

I suggest a new Thread for the Off-Topic section to be titled 'Weidmann vs Chapman: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, Mr Weidmann, you would realize how much you delight Mr Chapman every time you take his bait. Diverting serious discussions is the only reason he's here, and you fall for it, every time. It's pathetic.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Again, Mr Weidmann, look at Ms Paine's Irving testimony session and ask the question: how exactly were the numbers 275 and 276 chosen as the exhibit numbers?

Why don't you save me the time and simply tell me, Mr. Ford?

They rigged it by naming the first Ruth Paine Exhibit 'Exhibit No. 270'!

Ruth Paine Exhibit 270: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 271: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 272: a sheet of wrapping paper
Ruth Paine Exhibit 273: a strip of sticking tape
Ruth Paine Exhibit 274: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 275: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 276: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277: bunch of letters from Ms Paine to Ms Oswald
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-A: $10 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Dec 1963)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-B: $5 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Jan 1964)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278: Christmas card from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278-A: Envelope in which Christmas card (Exhibit 278) was transmitted.

A complete farce. They were there in Irving for one reason and one reason only: to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 04:42:50 AM
A complete farce. They were there in Irving for one reason and one reason only: to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276.

They needed to do this because two curtain rods marked 275 & 276 (= precise length markings stamped on the rods by the manufacturer) had been discovered in the Depository and, on 15 March, submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 02:40:21 PM
They rigged it by naming the first Ruth Paine Exhibit 'Exhibit No. 270'!

Ruth Paine Exhibit 270: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 271: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 272: a sheet of wrapping paper
Ruth Paine Exhibit 273: a strip of sticking tape
Ruth Paine Exhibit 274: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 275: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 276: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277: bunch of letters from Ms Paine to Ms Oswald
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-A: $10 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Dec 1963)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-B: $5 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Jan 1964)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278: Christmas card from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278-A: Envelope in which Christmas card (Exhibit 278) was transmitted.

A complete farce. They were there in Irving for one reason and one reason only: to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276.

They needed to do this because two curtain rods marked 275 & 276 (= precise length markings stamped on the rods by the manufacturer) had been discovered in the Depository and, on 15 March, submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'

There is a massive flaw in your argument. How in the world could there have been two curtain rods at the TSBD that were already marked 275 and 276? Who marked them, when were they marked and why?

You're not suggesting that the numbers were already on the rods when Oswald brought them in, are you? And who was the Depository employee who found them?

It seems to me that you, with hindsight, are trying to concoct an explanation for the numbers being written on the DPD document.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 02:40:48 PM
I suggest a new Thread for the Off-Topic section to be titled 'Weidmann vs Chapman: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, Mr Weidmann, you would realize how much you delight Mr Chapman every time you take his bait. Diverting serious discussions is the only reason he's here, and you fall for it, every time. It's pathetic.

Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell me what to do?

If you had any common decency you could have contacted me by PM instead of publicly trying to police the forum because of something you don't like. I am very much aware about what is going on with Chapman. Do you really believe for one second that low life Chapman will desist disrupting discussions on this forum? Of course not, he will just try to do it in another way.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 02:48:14 PM
Indeed. That's what happens when insecure little men with an inferiority complex are desperately trying to prove and justify themselves. Like a hush puppy barking to a bull dog....

Your obsession with me remains duly noted.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 02:54:47 PM
Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell me what to do?

If you had any common decency you could have contacted me by PM instead of publicly trying to police the forum because of something you don't like. I am very much aware about what is going on with Chapman. Do you really believe for one second that low life Chapman will desist disrupting discussions on this forum? Of course not, he will just try to do it in another way.

Stop whining.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 03:06:32 PM
it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

 I doubt that our little Chappie will understand your logic Martin.....  But you nailed him.

More a case of you two jokers inadvertently gobsmacking yourselves while trying to 'nail' me with what wind up as (verbal) boomerangs. Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, children.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 03:20:50 PM
There is a massive flaw in your argument. How in the world could there have been two curtain rods at the TSBD that were already marked 275 and 276? Who marked them, when were they marked and why?

My proposed answer to these very questions is already stated quite explicitly in my previous post (Reply #461).

If you have a better explanation as to why the first Ruth Paine Exhibit was numbered 270, I'm all ears
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 03:23:44 PM
But you are, right?   :D

If you say so.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 03:57:59 PM
I suggest a new Thread for the Off-Topic section to be titled 'Weidmann vs Chapman: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, Mr Weidmann, you would realize how much you delight Mr Chapman every time you take his bait. Diverting serious discussions is the only reason he's here, and you fall for it, every time. It's pathetic.

As you'll find when you read Weidmann's response to your post, Mr Always Logged In is a hot-head  who flies off the handle at the drop of a Stetson. He eventually blows himself up good. Blows himself up real good.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 04:02:36 PM
My proposed answer to these very questions is already stated quite explicitly in my previous post (Reply #461).

If you have a better explanation as to why the first Ruth Paine Exhibit was numbered 270, I'm all ears

You claim to want serious discussion but when I ask you some questions you refer back to the exact post which made me ask the questions in the first place.

You can not explain why curtain rods, allegedly found at the TSBD, were already marked 275 and 276 nor do you say who marked them, when they were marked and why.

You claim a TSBD employee found those rods, yet when asked you do not provide his name

I have no idea why the Ruth Paine evidence numbers started with 270 and why it matters. You can speculate as much as you like but it will not get you anywhere.

I'm truly trying to understand what it is you are actually saying. Clearly the DPD document of 15 March 1964 demonstrates a discrepancy with Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964. Obviously, there is no way that Howlett could take the curtain rods from the shelf in the garage during the testimony, because the DPD document shows they were in DPD custody until at least the next day.

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Is your claim that those curtain rods were indeed removed from Ruth Paine's garage and submitted for testing on 15 March 1964? Or are you claiming that those curtain rods were not removed from Ruth Paine's garage at all, but instead were found at the TSBD with the evidence numbers somehow already attached to them?

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 04:10:58 PM
They needed to do this because two curtain rods marked 275 & 276 (= precise length markings stamped on the rods by the manufacturer) had been discovered in the Depository and, on 15 March, submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'

Bumped for Mr Weidmann in response to his accusation: "You can not explain why curtain rods, allegedly found at the TSBD, were already marked 275 and 276 nor do you say who marked them, when they were marked and why."
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 04:22:31 PM
Bumped for Mr Weidmann in response to his accusation: "You can not explain why curtain rods, allegedly found at the TSBD, were already marked 275 and 276 nor do you say who marked them, when they were marked and why."

I admit I missed that remark. But if the curtain rods were marked with those numbers by the manufacturer, then the WC could have given them any exhibit number, so who would the need to give them the same two evidence numbers? They could have just explained it by saying that the DPD document shows the manufacturer markings and not the CE numbers. It doesn't make sense.

But have you seen the actual curtain rods with those manufacturer markings on them? And if so, can you show them to us?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 05:57:19 PM
I admit I missed that remark. But if the curtain rods were marked with those numbers by the manufacturer, then the WC could have given them any exhibit number, so who would the need to give them the same two evidence numbers?

Already answered above:

The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'

But have you seen the actual curtain rods with those manufacturer markings on them? And if so, can you show them to us?

No------------they were disappeared after Agent Howlett received them back off Lt Day 3/24. From this point forward, there were only two curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' of relevance to the case. That was the point of the whole exercise: a switcheroo.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 13, 2021, 06:05:31 PM
Already answered above:

No------------they were disappeared after Agent Howlett received them back off Lt Day 3/24. From this point forward, there were only two curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' of relevance to the case. That was the point of the whole exercise: a switcheroo.

Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later, only to suppress them once again.  I can only marvel at the logical inconsistencies of this bizarre narrative.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 06:42:11 PM
Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later, only to suppress them once again.  I can only marvel at the logical inconsistencies of this bizarre narrative.

Geeeez! Watta revoltin development this is....I once again find myself agreeing with Mr "Smith"

I got a good belly laugh out of Mr Ford's statement that the manufacturer stamped the curtain rods with a "precise length"

How silly!....    Clearly Mr Ford doesn't even know what the curtain rods looked like....Because the curtain rods are NOT precision ....the length is adjustable from approximately two feet to four feet, by telescoping one rod inside the other.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 07:50:20 PM
Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later,

Nope!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 07:52:57 PM
Already answered above:

No------------they were disappeared after Agent Howlett received them back off Lt Day 3/24. From this point forward, there were only two curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' of relevance to the case. That was the point of the whole exercise: a switcheroo.

So, you haven't seen and can not show the curtain rods with the markings from the manufacturer that were allegedly found at the TSBD by somebody you can not name. You have no evidence that the curtain rods Howlett gave the DPD on March 15th were actually found at the TSBD and you can't even show that the manufacturer did in fact mark the curtain rods they produced?

So, basically, all of this is nothing more than speculation on your part, right?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2021, 08:22:32 PM
Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later, only to suppress them once again.  I can only marvel at the logical inconsistencies of this bizarre narrative.

on their own motion
>>> Of their own volition

You're welcome, "Richard" Richard.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2021, 08:24:31 PM
So, you haven't seen and can not show the curtain rods with the markings from the manufacturer that were allegedly found at the TSBD by somebody you can not name. You have no evidence that the curtain rods Howlett gave the DPD on March 15th were actually found at the TSBD and you can't even show that the manufacturer did in fact mark the curtain rods they produced?

Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'

Quote
So, basically, all of this is nothing more than speculation on your part, right?

Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270..........  Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2021, 09:39:53 PM

Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'


Very weak.

Quote

Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?


That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

Quote
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

Quote
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270..........  Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?

No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald). There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

Quote
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?

I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

Quote
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage. Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods. However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods. Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The fact is that what you have here is a puzzle which clearly has pieces missing. Speculating about what those pieces are isn't going to help you solve the puzzle.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 01:25:35 AM
Very weak.

That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted!  Thumb1:

Quote
It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted!  Thumb1:

Quote
No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald).

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

Quote
There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

Quote
I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

Quote
We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Quote
Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

Quote
However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods.

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

Quote
Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 02:15:20 AM
So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted!  Thumb1:

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted!  Thumb1:

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

If you want to call that "logical inference", then you must also agree with the LNs who claim that it is a "logical inference" that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning.

For neither, there is a shred of evidence and for both a "what else could have been" argument can be made. You can not call the one "logical inference" and the other speculation. So, what is it? Are the LNs right when they claim Oswald concealed a broken down MC rifle in his paper bag or not?

Btw I agree with you that something very strange is going on here, but if your ultimate goal is to claim that curtain rods were actually found at the TSBD - nearly four months after the murder - you are very far away from proving it.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 02:28:58 AM
This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 02:44:10 AM
My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.

Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them? How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was? And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 03:12:42 AM
Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

Quote
But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them?

Not necessarily

Quote
How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was?

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

Quote
And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

Not necessarily

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

You don't know this with any kind of certainty. It's just a selfserving claim, when in fact the WC in it's evidence list described the rods as "received from Mrs. Paine" thus disproving your claim that there is no other possible explanation. Obviously you don't accept that explanation, but it is an alternative source nevertheless.

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but you seem to be all over the place. First you ask me to provide "another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING", only to now say that there is no evidence the rods were ever properly tested and that Lt Day would not have recorded the results honestly. It doesn't add up.

I've asked you this before, but never got answer. Who is this TSBD employee who found the rods? Also, what would be the point to go through the charade of having the rods tested for prints?. Only just in case a TSBD employee might say something? It seems too far fetched, as this happened in March and the WC report wasn't released in September, with all the evidence being locked away, initially, for 75 years. They simply could have ignored the matter as they did with so many other things. They buried the Stroud letter and that was far more significant. There was IMO no need to actually put on the charade you are suggesting. Even less so, when they subsequently put in the exhibit description of the DPD document that the rods were received from Ruth Paine.

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

And why in the world would they have been removed from the bag? There simply is no plausible reason for it. As for Lt Day and Secret Service Agent not being interested in finding exculpatory evidence, if that's true than why go through the charade in the first place and generate paperwork. Just because they were worried about what this unnamed TSBD employee might say in the future? Really? I seriously doubt it.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 14, 2021, 03:27:01 PM
You CTers would piss yourselves if the curtain rod thing hadn't been investigated. Same thing goes for the paraffin tests, which were largely useless in that era*.

And what things haven't been investigated? Oh, yeah: CTer pet theories. So call a press conference, already.

*Firearm Factoids/MacAdams
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on February 14, 2021, 03:45:59 PM
You CTers would piss yourselves if the curtain rod thing hadn't been investigated. And what things haven't been investigated? Oh, yeah: CTer pet theories. So call a press conference, already.

Hey, here's a new thee-o-ree !!! Suppose...... Oz brought the curtain rods in with the disassembled Manlikker', put the rods up in the 6th-floor window to conceal his 'practice shots', then took them down minutes before he killed our president (whom he did indeed kill).  Did 6th-floor museum ever see if there were thingys to attach said curtain rods above the infamous window?  You know, those things you screw in to hold up the rods?  Were they there?  Are they there still?  Inquiring minds wish to know, uh.......  waiting for your prompt response, Mssr. Ford.  Moreover, would he remove said curtain rods to some other place like he did with the rifle?  This is exciting !!!!!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 03:49:40 PM
Hey, here's a new thee-o-ree !!! Suppose...... Oz brought the curtain rods in with the disassembled Manlikker', put the rods up in the 6th-floor window to conceal his 'practice shots', then took them down minutes before he killed our president (which he did).  Did 6th-floor museum ever see if there were thingys to attach said curtain rods above the infamous window?  You know, those things you screw in to hold up the rods?  Were they there?  Are they there still?  Inquiring minds wish to know, uh.......  waiting for your prompt response, Mssr. Ford.  Moreover, would he remove said curtain rods to some other place like he did with the rifle?

If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than acting like an obstinate and dismissive wanna be clown, would you be able to provide us with an explanation, Mr. Oblazney?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on February 14, 2021, 03:51:08 PM
If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 14, 2021, 03:56:31 PM
I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

Do you believe Oswald did it all on his own?
If you do, I ridicule you.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 04:04:06 PM
I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

Aha, just another fanatic who claims there is persuasive evidence but can never present it. Didn't you get the memo that says believing is something you do in church?

What evidence is there really, except for a rifle found at the TSBD, that can only tentatively be linked to Oswald?
The simple answer is; there is nothing more than that and a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 14, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
Do you believe Oswald did it all on his own?
If you do, I ridicule you.
The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 04:49:25 PM
The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. 

Nice story, but like much of the official narrative, there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Marina saying, in her testimony, that she once looked in the blanket, about a week after leaving New Orleans (late September 1963), and saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle, somehow morphes into "Oswald stored the MC rifle later found at the TSBD for two months in Ruth Paine's garage, where he picked it up on Thursday evening". But the evidence that this narrative is actually true is.... what, exactly?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 14, 2021, 05:13:42 PM
This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

If you want to call that "logical inference", then you must also agree with the LNs who claim that it is a "logical inference" that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning.

For neither, there is a shred of evidence and for both a "what else could have been" argument can be made. You can not call the one "logical inference" and the other speculation. So, what is it? Are the LNs right when they claim Oswald concealed a broken down MC rifle in his paper bag or not?

Btw I agree with you that something very strange is going on here, but if your ultimate goal is to claim that curtain rods were actually found at the TSBD - nearly four months after the murder - you are very far away from proving it.

The comparison between the conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag and Alan's baseless curtain rod theory is absurd.  To suggest those two events are both the result of "speculation" is laughable.  A rifle was found in the TSBD.  There is no doubt of that fact.  It was filmed.  It is a documented fact that the rifle was found on the 6th floor.  That rifle had a specific serial number that confirms it is the same rifle sent to Oswald's PO box.  Oswald is pictured holding a rifle that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald's prints are on the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.  Oswald made an unscheduled visit to the location where the rifle was kept on the night before the assassination.  He carried a long bag to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  His rifle is no longer in the Paine's garage when the DPD search it later that day.  A long bag is found next to the SN from which shots were fired.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It can't be accounted for in any other way at that location except to contain the rifle.  No other long bag is ever found. Oswald's rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found in the TSBD.  He lies about ever even owning a rifle and provides no explanation for how his rifle came to be there.

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.  There are no photos of any such curtain rods being found there.  No witness ever came forward to confirm any such curtain rods were ever found.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD.  No curtain rods are missing from Paine's garage.  Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina for any curtain rods.  Oswald himself denies carrying any curtain rods even though that would have been exculpatory to him.  Oswald's prints are not found on any curtain rods.  It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 14, 2021, 05:25:07 PM
Hey, here's a new thee-o-ree !!! Suppose...... Oz brought the curtain rods in with the disassembled Manlikker', put the rods up in the 6th-floor window to conceal his 'practice shots', then took them down minutes before he killed our president (whom he did indeed kill).  Did 6th-floor museum ever see if there were thingys to attach said curtain rods above the infamous window?  You know, those things you screw in to hold up the rods?  Were they there?  Are they there still?  Inquiring minds wish to know, uh.......  waiting for your prompt response, Mssr. Ford.  Moreover, would he remove said curtain rods to some other place like he did with the rifle?  This is exciting !!!!!

Just as importantly, or even more so, were any ashtrays found in the sn? After all, Wallyburger claims that the corner was a 'Smoker's Nook'. Or something.

Wow... it's all becoming so clear to me now: Oswald lied about not bringing curtain rods so he could claim plausible deniability in case any nooky-corner funny-business surfaced! Brilliant!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 05:36:26 PM
The comparison between the conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag and Alan's baseless curtain rod theory is absurd.  To suggest those two events are both the result of "speculation" is laughable.  A rifle was found in the TSBD.  There is no doubt of that fact.  It was filmed.  It is a documented fact that the rifle was found on the 6th floor.  That rifle had a specific serial number that confirms it is the same rifle sent to Oswald's PO box.  Oswald is pictured holding a rifle that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald's prints are on the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.  Oswald made an unscheduled visit to the location where the rifle was kept on the night before the assassination.  He carried a long bag to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  His rifle is no longer in the Paine's garage when the DPD search it later that day.  A long bag is found next to the SN from which shots were fired.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It can't be accounted for in any other way at that location except to contain the rifle.  No other long bag is ever found. Oswald's rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found in the TSBD.  He lies about ever even owning a rifle and provides no explanation for how his rifle came to be there.

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.  There are no photos of any such curtain rods being found there.  No witness ever came forward to confirm any such curtain rods were ever found.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD.  No curtain rods are missing from Paine's garage.  Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina for any curtain rods.  Oswald himself denies carrying any curtain rods even though that would have been exculpatory to him.  Oswald's prints are not found on any curtain rods.  It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.

The comparison between the conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag and Alan's baseless curtain rod theory is absurd.  To suggest those two events are both the result of "speculation" is laughable.  A rifle was found in the TSBD.  There is no doubt of that fact.  It was filmed.  It is a documented fact that the rifle was found on the 6th floor.

Once again, you're missing the point. The comparision was about a broken down MC rifle being concealed in the bag Oswald carried. No matter how much spin you put on it, you have not a shred of evidence there ever was a broken rifle of any kind in the bag Oswald carried, nor have you a shred of evidence that the bag found at the TSBD was the same bag Oswald carried.

That rifle had a specific serial number that confirms it is the same rifle sent to Oswald's PO box.  Oswald is pictured holding a rifle that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald's prints are on the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.  Oswald made an unscheduled visit to the location where the rifle was kept on the night before the assassination.

All this is part of a narrative for which there isn't a shred of evidence. You can not present any evidence that shows that;

- any rifle was sent to Oswald's PO box.
- the serial number handwritten on an internal documents of Klein's was actually written on it prior to the assassination
- that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY pictures is actually the same one found at the TSBD or that he owned it
- Oswald's print (not prints!) was found on the MC rifle. All you have is an evidence card with his print on it, produced by Day a week after the assissination.
- Oswald kept a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.

He carried a long bag to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  His rifle is no longer in the Paine's garage when the DPD search it later that day.  A long bag is found next to the SN from which shots were fired.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It can't be accounted for in any other way at that location except to contain the rifle.  No other long bag is ever found. Oswald's rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found in the TSBD.  He lies about ever even owning a rifle and provides no explanation for how his rifle came to be there.

More BS.. the mere fact that you can not account for some things in any other way doesn't mean any of what you have written is actually true.

In short, you are using a concocted narrative based on very little physical evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald must have carried the MC rifle to work on Friday morning and are calling it "a logical inference".

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.

There is no contrast. You are calling all sorts of speculative assumptions "facts" which they clearly are not!

There are no photos of any such curtain rods being found there.  No witness ever came forward to confirm any such curtain rods were ever found.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD. No curtain rods are missing from Paine's garage.  Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina for any curtain rods.

That's a fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.

Only in your biased mind.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than being your usual contrarian self, why don't you try to provide us with an explanation, other that the silly "they got the dates wrong" crap?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 14, 2021, 06:05:38 PM
Do you believe Oswald did it all on his own?
If you do, I ridicule you.

----------------------
OSWALD HAD HELP
----------------------

A) Alek Hidell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
B) O.H. Lee (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
C) Dirty Harvey (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of killing poor dumb cops
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

You don't know this with any kind of certainty. It's just a selfserving claim, when in fact the WC in it's evidence list described the rods as "received from Mrs. Paine" thus disproving your claim that there is no other possible explanation. Obviously you don't accept that explanation, but it is an alternative source nevertheless.

OK, then perhaps you can point me to the portion of Ms Paine's testimony where she--------or the interrogator----------makes reference to this kind donation from Ms Paine?

Even if you could (and you can't, because no such reference exists and such a donation is explicitly ruled out in what Ms Paine does say), why would just two out of four curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints ahead of the formal receipt of the other two curtain rods in the garage? Not one bit of this scenario makes any sense.

Quote
No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but you seem to be all over the place. First you ask me to provide "another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING", only to now say that there is no evidence the rods were ever properly tested and that Lt Day would not have recorded the results honestly. It doesn't add up.

It's perfectly simple, Mr Weidmann: a document was generated recording the submission 3/15 for fingerprint testing of two curtain rods; the negative result as to Mr Oswald's fingerprints being on the rods; the release of the rods 3/24. Whether any such testing actually took place (at least on these two rods) is moot.

Two curtain rods were however tested 3/25/64------the day AFTER the first pair of rods were officially released back to Agent Howlett.

Quote
I've asked you this before, but never got answer. Who is this TSBD employee who found the rods?

How the heck would I know?

Quote
Also, what would be the point to go through the charade of having the rods tested for prints?. Only just in case a TSBD employee might say something? It seems too far fetched, as this happened in March and the WC report wasn't released in September, with all the evidence being locked away, initially, for 75 years.

The employee will have been shown a copy of the document as 'proof' the matter was looked into thoroughly.

Quote
They simply could have ignored the matter as they did with so many other things.

Well, they evidently made a judgment call in this case that such would not be a smart course of action

Quote
They buried the Stroud letter and that was far more significant. There was IMO no need to actually put on the charade you are suggesting. Even less so, when they subsequently put in the exhibit description of the DPD document that the rods were received from Ruth Paine.

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

And why in the world would they have been removed from the bag? There simply is no plausible reason for it. As for Lt Day and Secret Service Agent not being interested in finding exculpatory evidence, if that's true than why go through the charade in the first place and generate paperwork. Just because they were worried about what this unnamed TSBD employee might say in the future? Really? I seriously doubt it.

Well, given that you know nothing about said employee--------their personality, their status, their insistence, whether or not they had told others about the discovery----------your subjective feeling of doubt is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 06:22:24 PM
Aha, just another fanatic who claims there is persuasive evidence but can never present it. Didn't you get the memo that says believing is something you do in church?

What evidence is there really, except for a rifle found at the TSBD, that can only tentatively be linked to Oswald?
The simple answer is; there is nothing more than that and a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.

Poor Mr O'Blazney is just another troubled individual............

and what, pray tell, mssr. 'prayerdude', explains your cognitive dissonance?  anybody but oswald.  i remember having a nice chat with mssr. bugliosi back in the day.  that, and other conversations changed my mind, for i was almost like you.  and then there was leo damore, whose book deprived ted kennedy of his mantle as president. and before that, lane and garrison, et. al.  they polluted the minds of millions...... MILLIONS !!!  mae  didn't help, either.  nor did sarah mcclendon, whose wheelchair i used to push into the white house for press conferences (they don't have press conferences anymore.....sigh+), passing notes to tim mccury from her.  oh, those were the days !!.  everything changed when W was illegally named 'the chief'.  they wouldn't let me in then after that numbskull was erected, as i had an FBI file, et. al., but she bellowed "the president shall hear of this !!"....... then they let me in. did you know she was responsible for an 11 million-dollar makeover in order to have handicapped people accessible into the white house? (read: americans with disabilities act)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 06:45:08 PM

OK, then perhaps you can point me to the portion of Ms Paine's testimony where she--------or the interrogator----------makes reference to this kind donation from Ms Paine?

Even if you could (and you can't, because no such reference exists and such a donation is explicitly ruled out in what Ms Paine does say), why would just two out of four curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints ahead of the formal receipt of the other two curtain rods in the garage? Not one bit of this scenario makes any sense.

I say to you what I just said to "Richard"; Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree it doesn't make sense, but neither does Howlett being able to find rods marked 275 and 276 in Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, when the DPD document, signed by him, and relied upon by you, shows he did not collect the rods marked 275 and 276 from the DPD until the next day.

Ruth Paine may not have mentioned it in her testimony, but the WC described the rods mentioned in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 as "received from Ruth Paine". Now, remember the WC report was released in September 1964. If the WC wanted to obscure something, why would they use that exact description in their own exhibit list?

Quote
It's perfectly simple, Mr Weidmann: a document was generated recording the submission 3/15 for fingerprint testing of two curtain rods; the negative result as to Mr Oswald's fingerprints being on the rods; the release of the rods 3/24. Whether any such testing actually took place (at least on these two rods) is moot.

Two curtain rods were however tested 3/25/64------the day AFTER the first pair of rods were officially released back to Agent Howlett.


So, if what you say is true, there was some shenanigans going on, much like what happened with the BY photo that was shown by a FBI agent to Michael Paine on Friday evening, when the official record says the photo(s) were only found on Saturday afternoon.

Quote
How the heck would I know?

I don't know, but you are the one claiming a TSBD employee found those rods, noticed the markings 275 and 276, thus forcing Howlett and Day to engage in some sort of cover up. When you make a claim like that it's not unreasonable to think that you must at least know who the employee was.... That is, of course, unless you are just making it all up!

Quote
The employee will have been shown a copy of the document as 'proof' the matter was looked into thoroughly.

Another assumption for which you don't have a shred of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever since no law enforcement officers goes back to somebody who found something, just to justify how it was followed up.

Quote
Well, they evidently made a judgment call in this case that such would not be a smart course of action

"Evidently"?... Another assumption! And who are "they"?

Quote
Well, given that you know nothing about said employee--------their personality, their status, their insistence, whether or not they had told others about the discovery----------your subjective feeling of doubt is neither here nor there.

Given the fact that you know nothing about the alleged employee, your highly speculative and subjective opinion is even less valid. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to convince you of something, where you are making one claim after another. If you want to be believed, you should at least be able to back it up with a bit more evidence than a DPD document and a theory.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 14, 2021, 07:40:18 PM
The comparison between the conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag and Alan's baseless curtain rod theory is absurd.  To suggest those two events are both the result of "speculation" is laughable.  A rifle was found in the TSBD.  There is no doubt of that fact.  It was filmed.  It is a documented fact that the rifle was found on the 6th floor.

Once again, you're missing the point. The comparision was about a broken down MC rifle being concealed in the bag Oswald carried. No matter how much spin you put on it, you have not a shred of evidence there ever was a broken rifle of any kind in the bag Oswald carried, nor have you a shred of evidence that the bag found at the TSBD was the same bag Oswald carried.

That rifle had a specific serial number that confirms it is the same rifle sent to Oswald's PO box.  Oswald is pictured holding a rifle that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald's prints are on the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.  Oswald made an unscheduled visit to the location where the rifle was kept on the night before the assassination.

All this is part of a narrative for which there isn't a shred of evidence. You can not present any evidence that shows that;

- any rifle was sent to Oswald's PO box.
- the serial number handwritten on an internal documents of Klein's was actually written on it prior to the assassination
- that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY pictures is actually the same one found at the TSBD or that he owned it
- Oswald's print (not prints!) was found on the MC rifle. All you have is an evidence card with his print on it, produced by Day a week after the assissination.
- Oswald kept a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.

He carried a long bag to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  His rifle is no longer in the Paine's garage when the DPD search it later that day.  A long bag is found next to the SN from which shots were fired.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It can't be accounted for in any other way at that location except to contain the rifle.  No other long bag is ever found. Oswald's rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found in the TSBD.  He lies about ever even owning a rifle and provides no explanation for how his rifle came to be there.

More BS.. the mere fact that you can not account for some things in any other way doesn't mean any of what you have written is actually true.

In short, you are using a concocted narrative based on very little physical evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald must have carried the MC rifle to work on Friday morning and are calling it "a logical inference".

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.

There is no contrast. You are calling all sorts of speculative assumptions "facts" which they clearly are not!

There are no photos of any such curtain rods being found there.  No witness ever came forward to confirm any such curtain rods were ever found.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD. No curtain rods are missing from Paine's garage.  Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina for any curtain rods.

That's a fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.

Only in your biased mind.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than being your usual contrarian self, why don't you try to provide us with an explanation, other that the silly "they got the dates wrong" crap?

Again, you argue there is "no evidence" by applying an impossible standard of proof to the actual evidence.   For example, you contend that there is "no evidence" that a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  But Klein's confirms that they received an order and sent a specific MC rifle to a PO Box that belonged to Oswald.  Are they lying?  What happened to this rifle if it didn't go to Oswald since it was sent to his PO Box?  You try to cast doubt on the serial number because it was in handwriting.  LOL. The rifle was found in Oswald's place of employment.  It has the same serial number.  It's difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence to link Oswald to this rifle than exists.  Because he was in the commission of a crime, Oswald took some measures to conceal his activities.  Like not carrying his rifle in the open but putting it into a bag.  It is simply absurd to dismiss all this evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the rifle because no one had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag or a time machine.  All the more astounding is that in dismissing all the evidence that links Oswald to the rifle, you imply all this evidence is suspect while still denying that you are a CTer.  It is just a lazy way of playing the endless contrarian.  This kind of stuff just happens again and again to implicate Oswald.   Much of this evidence is discovered at the crime scene or very shortly thereafter.  But we are supposed to entertain the baseless contention that it was all somehow produced and planted within hours?  But you are not a CTer?  Weak sauce.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 08:29:56 PM

Again, you argue there is "no evidence" by applying an impossible standard of proof to the actual evidence.   For example, you contend that there is "no evidence" that a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  But Klein's confirms that they received an order and sent a specific MC rifle to a PO Box that belonged to Oswald.  Are they lying? 


That's a misrepresentation of the facts. Klein's never confirmed that they sent a rifle to a PO box belonging to Oswald. What really happened was that William Waldman, who had no direct involvement in the rifle retail side of the business, was shown a number of (photocopies of) documents and was asked to explain their meaning. He confirmed that some of the markings on the document indicated that a rifle was shipped. Waldman was in no position to actually confirm that a rifle had really been shipped. So, he wasn't lying. He just told the WC what was on the documents. But maybe the difference between the two is difficult for you to understand.

Why did the WC not take testimony from the person who actually wrote the serial numbers on Waldman 7 and actually packed and shipped the rifle? That would have been direct evidence, yet, for some reason, the WC wasn't interested and you don't find that strange?

Quote
What happened to this rifle if it didn't go to Oswald since it was sent to his PO Box? 

Show us the actual shipping documents by Parcel Post, something like a reciept made out by Parcel Post, and perhaps we'll find out together. Oh wait, there are no such documents. Oops!

Quote
You try to cast doubt on the serial number because it was in handwriting.  LOL. The rifle was found in Oswald's place of employment.  It has the same serial number.  It's difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence to link Oswald to this rifle than exists. 

It goes both ways. One way is "the rifle was found at the TSBD, so Oswald must have killed Kennedy" or, alternatively, "the rifle was found at the TSBD, where it was planted to implicate Oswald in the murder". Both versions work and thus the entire argument is moot and meaningless.

Quote
Because he was in the commission of a crime, Oswald took some measures to conceal his activities.  Like not carrying his rifle in the open but putting it into a bag. 

Your conclusion is based on the pre-determined conclusion that Oswald committed the crime.

Quote
It is simply absurd to dismiss all this evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the rifle because no one had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag or a time machine. 

The only "evidence" that tentatively links Oswald to the rifle is the opinion of a Questioned Documents expert who claims that the minimal writing on a photo copy of the Klein's order form, the envelope and money order, is Oswald's. And even that doesn't mean it was actually Oswald who ordered the rifle for himself.

Quote
All the more astounding is that in dismissing all the evidence that links Oswald to the rifle, you imply all this evidence is suspect while still denying that you are a CTer.  It is just a lazy way of playing the endless contrarian.  This kind of stuff just happens again and again to implicate Oswald.   Much of this evidence is discovered at the crime scene or very shortly thereafter.  But we are supposed to entertain the baseless contention that it was all somehow produced and planted within hours?  But you are not a CTer?  Weak sauce.

CE 399 was allegedly found at Parkland Hospital on day one, yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that the bullet now in evidence was the one found at Parkland Hospital. On the other hand, there is evidence that clearly contradicts that conclusion. Whatever evidence they found at the crime scene or shortly after the murder(s) lacks in most cases authentication and a sound chain of custody. You don't have to be a CT to see the obvious. Be it Wright, telling Joshia Thompson that the bullet he saw did not resemble the one now in evidence as CE 399, or the massive effort made by General Walker to convince the HSCA that the bullet now known as the Walker bullet was in fact not the same one that was taken from his home, or S.A. Odum who denied that he ever had or showed CE 399 to anyone in April 1964, as the FBI had falsely told the WC... the list goes on and on... Only a fanatical fool would take that kind evidence at face value.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2021, 08:55:16 PM
The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.


About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note.

Provacative note?... We don't know for sure what that note said, because according tp Hosty, it was destroyed on orders from FBI headquarters. AFTER the murder of president Kennedy.   This act of destruction of evidence was a felony....And we can logically assume the note contained information that Hoover didn't want the pissants to know....

Perhaps you don't know what Hosty himself said about that note....Hosty said that Lee Oswald wanted Hosty to come to see him....

 Lee Oswald wrote: .....
"My wife is a Russian citizen who is here in this country legally and she is protected under diplomatic lawsfrom harassment by you or any other FBI agent. The FBI is no better than the Gestapo of Nazi Germany. If you wanted to talk to me, you should have come directly to me, not my wife. You never responded to my request."

Provocative ?....Yes, perhaps mildly.... but IMO it's more of an angry requet intended to prompt Hosty into action....What action?..

"you should have come directly to me, not my wife. You never responded to my request."

Lee had sent a note to HL Hunt on November the 8th....requesting "information " about what Mr hunt wanted him to do"

Then on November 12 He sent a note to Hosty that said in closing..."YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MY REQUEST"  so obviously Lee had requested that Hosty come to see him.... in person..but Hosty went to Irving and tried to talk to Marina, and actually talked to Ruth Paine.  ( That pissed Lee off)

You may recall that Lee had just returned from Mexico City so he quite likely had some information that he wanted to give to the FBI.

On November 17th Lee sent a poorly constructed telex to the FBI office in New Orleans ( Warren De Bruey's had been his handler in NO before he departed for Mexico City.) The telex had many misspelled words, and type overs.....because Lee was using the telex machine in the TSBD in the wee hours of the morning...1:45 am) ( He probably was typing while using a flashlight.)   The Telex on November 17th revealed a desperate attempt to inform the FBI that a a Militant revolutionary group may attempt to assinate (sic) president Kennedy on his proposed trip to Dallas Texas XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX November twentytwo dash twentythree nineteen sictythree.

Summary...

11/ ? / 63---- Lee sent a note to Hosty requesting a meeting....  Non productive.

11/11/ 63----  Lee sent a note to HL Hunt requesting a meeting....

11/12 / 63---- Lee sent another note to Hosty requesting a meeting  ....non productive

11/ 17 /63---- Lee sent a telex to FBI office in New Orleans...  Non productive 


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 09:36:07 PM
I say to you what I just said to "Richard"; Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree it doesn't make sense, but neither does Howlett being able to find rods marked 275 and 276 in Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, when the DPD document, signed by him, and relied upon by you, shows he did not collect the rods marked 275 and 276 from the DPD until the next day.

Ruth Paine may not have mentioned it in her testimony, but the WC described the rods mentioned in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 as "received from Ruth Paine". Now, remember the WC report was released in September 1964. If the WC wanted to obscure something, why would they use that exact description in their own exhibit list?

So you're suggesting the WC is telling us that
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine on or prior to 3/15 and these rods were marked 275 & 276
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine's garage on 3/23 and these rods were also, quite by coincidence, marked 275 & 276?

Quote
So, if what you say is true, there was some shenanigans going on, much like what happened with the BY photo that was shown by a FBI agent to Michael Paine on Friday evening, when the official record says the photo(s) were only found on Saturday afternoon.

I don't know, but you are the one claiming a TSBD employee found those rods, noticed the markings 275 and 276, thus forcing Howlett and Day to engage in some sort of cover up. When you make a claim like that it's not unreasonable to think that you must at least know who the employee was....

Why so?

Again I remind you, Mr Weidmann: neither you nor anyone else can suggest a location other than the Depository where two curtain rods turning up would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. My commonsense logical inference trumps your complete inability to come up with a single counter-scenario.

Quote
Another assumption for which you don't have a shred of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever since no law enforcement officers goes back to somebody who found something, just to justify how it was followed up.

Nonsense

Quote
"Evidently"?... Another assumption! And who are "they"?

Given the fact that you know nothing about the alleged employee, your highly speculative and subjective opinion is even less valid. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to convince you of something

Yes you are. You are trying to convince me that your inability to
----------explain the data on the Crime Scene Search Section form
----------offer an alternative location for discovery of the curtain rods such that their testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise
----------explain the bizarre decision of the WC to start numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits taken 3/23 at 270
puts you in a strong position to critique my coherent explanation of all the elements of this issue.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 09:58:10 PM
So you're suggesting the WC is telling us that
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine on or prior to 3/15 and these rods were marked 275 & 276
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine's garage on 3/23 and these rods were also, quite by coincidence, marked 275 & 276?


I'm not suggesting anything. I am merely stating known facts.

Fact 1: In it's exhibit's list the WC stated that the curtain rods refered to in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 were received from Ruth Paine
Fact 2: Ruth Paine's testimony of 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage.

Fact 3: those two facts can not involve the same curtain rods as the DPD document shows that Howlett did not collect the rods submitted on the 15th until 24 March 1964. In other words; the same set of curtain rods can not be a two locations at the same time.

Quote
Why so?

Why so what?

Quote
Again I remind you, Mr Weidmann: neither you nor anyone else can suggest a location other than the Depository where two curtain rods turning up would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. My commonsense logical inference trumps your complete inability to come up with a single counter-scenario.

Your "commonsense logical inference" is an assumption that trumps nothing. You are acting like a "I'm right if you can't prove me wrong" LN.

Quote
Nonsense

Do you know any investigators who go back and report to what they did with the evidence to the person who found it? I seriously doubt it.

Quote
Yes you are. You are trying to convince me that your inability to
----------explain the data on the Crime Scene Search Section form
----------offer an alternative location for discovery of the curtain rods such that their testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise
----------explain the bizarre decision of the WC to start numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits taken 3/23 at 270
puts you in a strong position to critique my coherent explanation of all the elements of this issue.

No, I am not trying to convince you of any of that. I am telling you that your so-called "coherent explanantion" is nothing more than wild speculation, with no probative value, which completely fails to persuade anybody. As far as I am concerned you can be as stubborn as you like. It doesn't alter the fact that you are doing exactly what the LNs are being accused of all the time.

I have no horse in this race. From the beginning I have said that you were raising a legitmate question by pointing out the discrepancy between the DPD document and the content of Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, as far as the basic point is concerned I'm fully on your side. Where you lost me was when you started speculating and presenting it as fact. And if you can't even persuade somebody who agrees with you on the basics, you don't stand a chance of persuading anybody else.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2021, 10:01:40 PM
The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.

Mr G, I'd suggest that you read your own post....With an open mind.

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 10:07:31 PM
I'm not suggesting anything. I am merely stating known facts.

Fact 1: In it's exhibit's list the WC stated that the curtain rods refered to in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 were received from Ruth Paine
Fact 2: Ruth Paine's testimony of 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage.

Fact 3: those two facts can not involve the same curtain rods as the DPD document shows that Howlett did not collect the rods submitted on the 15th until 24 March 1964. In other words; the same set of curtain rods can not be a two locations at the same time.

And yet these two different sets of curtain rods both come attached with the numbers 275 & 276. Ain't that a thing!

Quote
No, I am not trying to convince you of any of that. I am telling you that your so-called "coherent explanantion" is nothing more than wild speculation

So:
----------------on the one hand you can't offer any alternative location to the Depository where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
----------------on the other hand you label the proposal that the Depository is the only location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints as 'wild speculation'.

This is not a strong argument, Mr Weidmann.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 10:37:59 PM
And yet these two different sets of curtain rods both come attached with the numbers 275 & 276. Ain't that a thing!

Indeed.

Quote
So:
----------------on the one hand you can't offer any alternative location to the Depository where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
----------------on the other hand you label the proposal that the Depository is the only location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints as 'wild speculation'.

This is not a strong argument, Mr Weidmann.

Just to make this clear once and for all, I am not arguing that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD. I simply do not know, due to a lack of information. It is you who is trying to convince me that curtain rods were found at the TSBD, but you can not say who found them, how Secret Service Agent Howlett got them and why he and Lt Day allegedly conspired together to manipulate the record without either telling their superiors.

Btw repeating the same flawed speculation over and over again doesn't make a strong argument either.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Just to make this clear once and for all, I am not arguing that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD. I simply do not know, due to a lack of information.

But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

This means the claim that Mr Oswald brought no curtain rods to work the morning of 11/22/63 is unsafe.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2021, 11:20:34 PM
But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

This means the claim that Mr Oswald brought no curtain rods to work the morning of 11/22/63 is unsafe.

Someone might have wanted to know if there was any evidence that could support Fraziers statement that Lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the paper sack.  If Lee had in fact taken a set of curtain rods from the Paines garage he likely would have handled other curtain rods that were in the same bundle. ....thus leaving his prints on the curtain rods that were left behind in the garage.    If Lee's prints had been found it could support Frazier's story.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 11:28:07 PM
Someone might have wanted to know if there was any evidence that could support Fraziers statement that Lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the paper sack.  If Lee had in fact taken a set of curtain rods from the Paines garage he likely would have handled other curtain rods that were in the same bundle. ....thus leaving his prints on the curtain rods that were left behind in the garage.    If Lee's prints had been found it could support Frazier's story.

So you posit four curtain rods in the Paine garage. Two are taken and submitted for zero-stakes testing 3/15, being assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Then on 3/24 the other two are taken and are also assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 14, 2021, 11:35:31 PM
But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

This means the claim that Mr Oswald brought no curtain rods to work the morning of 11/22/63 is unsafe.

We are going round in circles. The mere fact that you think it is likely that the rods Howlett submitted to Day on 15 March 1964 were found at the TSBD doesn't make it so. There simply is not enough information to determine if your opinion is correct or not.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2021, 11:53:21 PM
We are going round in circles. The mere fact that you think it is likely that the rods Howlett submitted to Day on 15 March 1964 were found at the TSBD doesn't make it so. There simply is not enough information to determine if your opinion is correct or not.

I can't force you to draw the obvious logical inference from the known information, Mr Weidmann. All I can do is note that you have not offered even the beginnings of a viable alternative explanation for said known information.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2021, 12:06:35 AM
So you posit four curtain rods in the Paine garage. Two are taken and submitted for zero-stakes testing 3/15, being assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Then on 3/24 the other two are taken and are also assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Brilliant.

Don't put words in my mouth Mr F.....   I said nothing about the numbers....I merely offered a logical reason that someone may have wanted to know if lee prints were on the curtain rods in Paines garage.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 12:12:05 AM
Don't put words in my mouth Mr F.....   I said nothing about the numbers....

You were wise not to------------they make a nonsense of your already nonsensical scenario
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 12:35:09 AM
I can't force you to draw the obvious logical inference from the known information, Mr Weidmann. All I can do is note that you have not offered even the beginnings of a viable alternative explanation for said known information.

Not the way it works, Mr Ford.

A so-called "logical inference" only comes into play when there is not sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 12:46:15 AM
Not the way it works, Mr Ford.

A so-called "logical inference" only comes into play when there is not sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

A logical inference comes into play when there is sufficient evidence to justify a logical inference. Such is the case here.

Rejecting this logical inference (in the absence of any counter-explanations of your own) is tantamount to saying 'I refuse to accept the claim of a cover-up because you cannot provide the kind of full documentary record that would have been available had there not been a cover-up'. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2021, 12:57:10 AM
You were wise not to------------they make a nonsense of your already nonsensical scenario

I believe most readers think that your scenario is nonsense......
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 01:07:10 AM
A logical inference comes into play when there is sufficient evidence to justify a logical inference. Such is the case here.

Rejecting this logical inference (in the absence of any counter-explanations of your own) is tantamount to saying 'I refuse to accept the claim of a cover-up because you cannot provide the kind of full documentary record that would have been available had there not been a cover-up'. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 09:10:41 AM
It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.

We already know what the nature of the cover-up was: to pin the assassination on Mr Oswald and Mr Oswald alone
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 09:12:28 AM
I believe most readers think that your scenario is nonsense......

OK then, Mr Cakebread, give us your scenario, only this time incorporate the numbers 275 and 276 into it!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on February 15, 2021, 12:44:40 PM
If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than acting like an obstinate and dismissive wanna be clown, would you be able to provide us with an explanation, Mr. Oblazney?

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 15, 2021, 12:57:57 PM
Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 01:13:33 PM
Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

I take it you are unable to provide a plausible explanation for the question asked by Alan Ford. Duly noted!


Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Anybody who says something as stupid and pathetic as this is suffering from delusions.

Oswald killed Kennnedy.

Well, let's see.

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Or is this more of the "I can't prove it, but just take my word for it" LN stupidity?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 02:38:55 PM
What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

The same goes for those who claim they already know the truth, but in most cases are unable to prove it with actual evidence.



Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 15, 2021, 02:57:03 PM
You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

The assassin suddenly breaks his routine and goes to the Paine household on Thursday. He shows up at Frazier's with a suspiciously long package. It's way too long for a lunch bag. Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it. Frazier sees Oswald collect the long package from the vehicle and make his way toward the TSBD:

"You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning"

It's obvious the package contains the rifle and you can't prove it doesn't.

Quote
You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

'You've only got an expert from the FBI confirming the rifle is Oswald's'   ;D
This is supposed to be an argument against Oswald owning the rifle?

Quote
You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63

And you can't place him anywhere else.
If, as you say, Oswald isn't on the sixth floor taking the shot, where is he?
You can't say with any certainty.

Quote
nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

All of this is predicated on the second floor lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald.
If, as many believe, this encounter doesn't take place there's no need for Oswald to be running anywhere.
After Baker and Truly pass by on their way to the roof he can just cruise down the stairs and out the front door before the building is locked down.

Quote
So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Your evidence that he didn't is what?


The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the importance of the 'narrative'.
Any detail can be taken in isolation and interpreted almost any way you please. But all the details must fit into an overall 'narrative' and the LNers have their narrative provided for them. It can't be proven what was in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD but in the LNer narrative it's obvious.
Any 'counter-narrative' must include the same details and, in my opinion, must be very close to what actually happened that day.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 15, 2021, 02:58:13 PM
The only two people who saw the bag are the two people with everything to lose by describing a bag size that would be a fit for a broken-down Carcano.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 15, 2021, 03:52:31 PM
That's a misrepresentation of the facts. Klein's never confirmed that they sent a rifle to a PO box belonging to Oswald. What really happened was that William Waldman, who had no direct involvement in the rifle retail side of the business, was shown a number of (photocopies of) documents and was asked to explain their meaning. He confirmed that some of the markings on the document indicated that a rifle was shipped. Waldman was in no position to actually confirm that a rifle had really been shipped. So, he wasn't lying. He just told the WC what was on the documents. But maybe the difference between the two is difficult for you to understand.

Why did the WC not take testimony from the person who actually wrote the serial numbers on Waldman 7 and actually packed and shipped the rifle? That would have been direct evidence, yet, for some reason, the WC wasn't interested and you don't find that strange?

Show us the actual shipping documents by Parcel Post, something like a reciept made out by Parcel Post, and perhaps we'll find out together. Oh wait, there are no such documents. Oops!



Wow.  I couldn't conjure up a better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to suggest false doubt than this one.  It is a real keeper.  Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme?  And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used.  Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.  There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 04:28:16 PM
Wow.  I couldn't conjure up a better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to suggest false doubt than this one.  It is a real keeper.  Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme?  And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used.  Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.  There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

And you actually believe this fairytale?

Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme? 

Oh yes... I see a theme that could have been completely avoided by bying a rifle in any gunshop in Texas without the need for an ID.

And I also see the usual misrepresentations of the evidence that is so common place for you.

And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used. 

Of course there is doubt when a VP testifies about a transaction and/or documents he had no part in, instead of somebody who actually handled the order. Had this case come to trial, the defense would have instantly called the person who actually had first hand knowledge of the transaction, if indeed there is such a person.

Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.

Complete BS... You think it is silly to call the person who actually handled the transaction (who could be identified easily) because that person might not remember details of the transaction as few months after the event, but you think nothing of a VP giving testimony about a transaction he wasn't part of at all. Yeah, that makes perfect sense  :D

There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

As per usual, only in you biased opinion.... Which of course is also why you ignored the part where I questioned why there are no shipping documents of Parcel Post in evidence!

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.


Waldman and Belin are talking about what a microfilm copy of a internal document of Klein's shows. Wow, that's some powerful testimony, right there.... Just about anybody who is not blind could have stated what was written on the document!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2021, 04:37:03 PM
Just playing Devil's Advocate...

The assassin suddenly breaks his routine and goes to the Paine household on Thursday. He shows up at Frazier's with a suspiciously long package. It's way too long for a lunch bag. Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it. Frazier sees Oswald collect the long package from the vehicle and make his way toward the TSBD:

"You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning"

It's obvious the package contains the rifle and you can't prove it doesn't.

'You've only got an expert from the FBI confirming the rifle is Oswald's'   ;D
This is supposed to be an argument against Oswald owning the rifle?

And you can't place him anywhere else.
If, as you say, Oswald isn't on the sixth floor taking the shot, where is he?
You can't say with any certainty.

All of this is predicated on the second floor lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald.
If, as many believe, this encounter doesn't take place there's no need for Oswald to be running anywhere.
After Baker and Truly pass by on their way to the roof he can just cruise down the stairs and out the front door before the building is locked down.

Your evidence that he didn't is what?


The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the importance of the 'narrative'.
Any detail can be taken in isolation and interpreted almost any way you please. But all the details must fit into an overall 'narrative' and the LNers have their narrative provided for them. It can't be proven what was in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD but in the LNer narrative it's obvious.
Any 'counter-narrative' must include the same details and, in my opinion, must be very close to what actually happened that day.

 Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it.

Pay attention Mr O....  Not only did Mr Frazier and his sister swear that the paper sack that Lee carried was no longer than 28 inches.... Mr Frazier has always maintained that the sack that he saw on the seat of his 53 Chevy, was constructed from LIGHT WEIGHT "FLIMSY" brown paper ...  The bag in evidence is constructed from HEAVY WEIGHT paper.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 15, 2021, 05:35:48 PM
And you actually believe this fairytale?

Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme? 

Oh yes... I see a theme that could have been completely avoided by bying a rifle in any gunshop in Texas without the need for an ID.

And I also see the usual misrepresentations of the evidence that is so common place for you.

And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used. 

Of course there is doubt when a VP testifies about a transaction and/or documents he had no part of, instead of somebody who actually handled the order. Had this case come to trial, the defense would have instantly called the person who actually had first hand knowledge of the transaction, if indeed there is such a person.

Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.

Complete BS... You think it is silly to call the person who actually handled the transaction (who could be identified easily) because that person might not remember details of the transaction as few months after the event, but you think nothing of a VP giving testimony about a transaction he wasn't part of at all. Yeah, that makes perfect sense  :D

There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

As per usual, only in you biased opinion.... Which of course is also why you ignored the part where I questioned why there are no shipping documents of Parcel Post in evidence!

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.


Waldman and Belin are talking about what a microfilm copy of a internal document of Klein's shows. Wow, that's some powerful testimony, right there.... Just about anybody who is not blind could have stated what was written on the document!

The fact that Oswald COULD have purchased his rifle in person does not in any way diminish the documentary evidence that confirms he DID purchase a rifle from Klein's.  You believe it would be necessary to find the person who actually packaged the rifle and have them confirm months or years later that he/she sent a specific rifle to someone to confirm this fact?  Incredible.  Has that ever been necessary in the history of crime when there are corresponding documents that confirm this fact?  This person would likely have no memory of who was mailed a rifle months after the fact.  They just put the gun in a package and someone mailed it out.  They may have done this hundreds or thousands of times.  The documents prove beyond any doubt that an order was received and processed for this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  It has a specific serial number.  It was not in Klein's possession.  How does it wind up in Oswald's place of employment?  A rifle with the exact same serial number that Klein's indicates that they sent to his PO Box.  Much of this evidence exists prior to the assassination, is discovered at the crime scene, and/or is confirmed within hours of the assassination.  Honestly, you seem like a person of average intelligence.  When you dispute obvious facts like Oswald's ownership of this rifle, it undermines your credibility on any other matter. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 06:03:07 PM
I take it you are unable to provide a plausible explanation for the question asked by Alan Ford. Duly noted!


Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Anybody who says something as stupid and pathetic as this is suffering from delusions.

Oswald killed Kennnedy.

Well, let's see.

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Or is this more of the "I can't prove it, but just take my word for it" LN stupidity?

Ah, but witness after witness said the sixth floor shooter was wearing either a reddish shirt or a white (or white-ish) t-shirt with a collar. You can't seriously be suggesting that the uncanny match here with Mr Oswald's attire is a coincidence? Come on...........
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 06:44:36 PM
Ah, but witness after witness said the sixth floor shooter was wearing either a reddish shirt or a white (or white-ish) t-shirt with a collar. You can't seriously be suggesting that the uncanny match here with Mr Oswald's attire is a coincidence? Come on...........

What attire would you be talking about? The shirt he was wearing when he was arrested or the shirt he left at the rooming house after changing his clothes?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 07:05:46 PM
The fact that Oswald COULD have purchased his rifle in person does not in any way diminish the documentary evidence that confirms he DID purchase a rifle from Klein's.  You believe it would be necessary to find the person who actually packaged the rifle and have them confirm months or years later that he/she sent a specific rifle to someone to confirm this fact?  Incredible.  Has that ever been necessary in the history of crime when there are corresponding documents that confirm this fact?  This person would likely have no memory of who was mailed a rifle months after the fact.  They just put the gun in a package and someone mailed it out.  They may have done this hundreds or thousands of times.  The documents prove beyond any doubt that an order was received and processed for this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  It has a specific serial number.  It was not in Klein's possession.  How does it wind up in Oswald's place of employment?  A rifle with the exact same serial number that Klein's indicates that they sent to his PO Box.  Much of this evidence exists prior to the assassination, is discovered at the crime scene, and/or is confirmed within hours of the assassination.  Honestly, you seem like a person of average intelligence.  When you dispute obvious facts like Oswald's ownership of this rifle, it undermines your credibility on any other matter.

The fact that Oswald COULD have purchased his rifle in person does not in any way diminish the documentary evidence that confirms he DID purchase a rifle from Klein's.

What documentary evidence exactly confirms that Oswald purchased the MC rifle from Klein's?

All there is are photocopies of an order form, an envelope and a money order which one FBI expert claimed were written by Oswald. That's it! All the other documents produced by Klein's internally is derived from the order form and money order. Those internal documents prove nothing more than that Klein's processed an order!

You believe it would be necessary to find the person who actually packaged the rifle and have them confirm months or years later that he/she sent a specific rifle to someone to confirm this fact?  Incredible. 

That person would stand a hell of a better chance of remembering than a VP who had no part in the transaction and who only confirms what is shown on some internal documents, without actually knowing a damned thing for sure about the transaction.

Has that ever been necessary in the history of crime when there are corresponding documents that confirm this fact?  This person would likely have no memory of who was mailed a rifle months after the fact.  They just put the gun in a package and someone mailed it out.  They may have done this hundreds or thousands of times.

Don't underestimate a person's ability to recollect information or notice anomalies in the paperwork, if there are any. In any event, the person handling the transaction would have written the serial number on Waldman 7 and that alone could authenticate the actual document. But perhaps the WC wasn't after authentication and preferred easily manipulated photo copies...

The documents prove beyond any doubt that an order was received and processed for this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.

No they don't prove that at all.

It was not in Klein's possession.

Of course not.... Waldman confirmed that according to Waldman 07 it was shipped by Parcel Post. So where is the receipt of Parcel Post?

How does it wind up in Oswald's place of employment?

Obviously somebody put it there. Too bad that the rifle, when it was found, had no prints on it that one would expect there to be when somebody places a rifle between some boxes. Oh yeah, I forgot... Oswald must have wiped the rifle clean to avoid being linked to it, right? A bit silly, don't you think, after first leaving a massive and easy to follow trail behind at Klein's and with the BY photos....But I'm sure in your mind it makes perfect sense, right?

A rifle with the exact same serial number that Klein's indicates that they sent to his PO Box.

When exactly did somebody write the serial number on Waldman 07? Do you know?

Much of this evidence exists prior to the assassination, is discovered at the crime scene, and/or is confirmed within hours of the assassination.

How do you know what evidence existed prior to the assassination?

Honestly, you seem like a person of average intelligence. 

Says the guy who fools himself in believing he is smarter than everybody else, yet he still supports Trump... Go figure!

When you dispute obvious facts like Oswald's ownership of this rifle, it undermines your credibility on any other matter.

When you jump like conclusions not supported by the actual evidence, it doesn't undermine your credibility, it completely destroys it. There are so many variables in play here, that there is nothing obvious about Oswald's alleged ownership of the MC rifle.

I can easily provide a completely different narrative, based on the same evidence, that justifies the conclusion that Oswald was manipulated and that it never was his rifle! That's how pathetically poor quality the evidence is.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 15, 2021, 07:10:54 PM
Wow.  I couldn't conjure up a better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to suggest false doubt than this one.  It is a real keeper.  Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme?  And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used.  Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.  There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

A perfect example of what I was talking about  - many threads of evidence woven together into a seamless narrative.
The counter-narrative being - all the evidence was faked and all the witnesses manipulated.

Put those two narratives before a jury and see what happens.

To abuse a Frank Zappa quote - I'm not a LNer but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I'm not a CTer
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 07:26:59 PM
A perfect example of what I was talking about  - many threads of evidence woven together into a seamless narrative.
The counter-narrative being - all the evidence was faked and all the witnesses manipulated.

Put those two narratives before a jury and see what happens.

To abuse a Frank Zappa quote - I'm not a LNer but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I'm not a CTer

You are looking at the house. Try looking at the foundations!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 15, 2021, 07:35:35 PM
Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it.

Pay attention Mr O....  Not only did Mr Frazier and his sister swear that the paper sack that Lee carried was no longer than 28 inches.... Mr Frazier has always maintained that the sack that he saw on the seat of his 53 Chevy, was constructed from LIGHT WEIGHT "FLIMSY" brown paper ...  The bag in evidence is constructed from HEAVY WEIGHT paper.

You've missed the point of the post Walt...
...but if I was a LNer I'd say the following:

" Mr Frazier and his sister swear that the paper sack that Lee carried was no longer than 28 inches."


What did they measure it with?
Was it just a guess?

"Mr Frazier has always maintained that the sack that he saw on the seat of his 53 Chevy, was constructed from LIGHT WEIGHT "FLIMSY" brown paper ...  The bag in evidence is constructed from HEAVY WEIGHT paper."

Then how do you explain this quote:

Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

And round and round we would go.


Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 08:32:17 PM
A perfect example of what I was talking about  - many threads of evidence woven together into a seamless narrative.
The counter-narrative being - all the evidence was faked and all the witnesses manipulated.

Put those two narratives before a jury and see what happens.

To abuse a Frank Zappa quote - I'm not a LNer but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I'm not a CTer

A perfect example of what I was talking about  - many threads of evidence woven together into a seamless narrative.

A "seamless narrative" full of assumptions, speculation and witnesses being ignored and/or called "mistaken".

The counter-narrative being - all the evidence was faked and all the witnesses manipulated.

That's not the real counter-narrative. It's what the LNs claim the counter-narrative is. But maybe some people do not understand the difference between faked evidence and manipulated evidence....

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2021, 09:30:58 PM
Ah, but witness after witness said the sixth floor shooter was wearing either a reddish shirt or a white (or white-ish) t-shirt with a collar. You can't seriously be suggesting that the uncanny match here with Mr Oswald's attire is a coincidence? Come on...........

witness after witness said the sixth floor shooter was wearing either a reddish shirt or a white (or white-ish) t-shirt with a collar.

OK Mr F....Present a single witness who described the sixth floor man's shirt as being "reddish"  Just One...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2021, 11:07:26 PM
witness after witness said the sixth floor shooter was wearing either a reddish shirt or a white (or white-ish) t-shirt with a collar.

OK Mr F....Present a single witness who described the sixth floor man's shirt as being "reddish"  Just One...

Good grief!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 15, 2021, 11:29:44 PM
Good grief!

What kind of a name is that?   ::)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 10:43:10 PM
What kind of a name is that?   ::)

Good Grief---- is what is experienced when an uncle who was a pervert, who molested children,  passes away
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 20, 2021, 03:25:49 AM
The only witness I can think of is Rowland Arnold describing the elderly
“negro” man at SE 5th foot window wearing a plaid shirt , red and green. The man  was probably Bonnie Ray Williams although it’s questionable if the young BRW could appear as elderly to Rowland because of dust fallen on his hair.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2021, 11:57:20 PM
It's 'copy/paste' in the digital age, cowboy.

Thanks for yet another "clever, cut-to-the-quick insight".   ::)

Quote
And you can 'supposed' what you like, JudgeJohnny.

Hilarious that you would bestow that moniker on me when it's you who has made the verdict in this case.  And with zero justification.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2021, 11:59:55 PM
Handy Guide to Walt's Fabrications by John Iacoletti
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.msg1042.html#msg1042

Walt may make up some fanciful stories, but at least what he posts is coherent and relevant.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:06:21 AM
Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later, only to suppress them once again.  I can only marvel at the logical inconsistencies of this bizarre narrative.

What I marvel at is the complete inability of the WC apologists to explain how curtain rods were "found" in Ruth Paine's garage 8 days after they were submitted into evidence.  And furthermore that they don't even wonder.  Alan's theory may be speculative but at least he's trying to reconcile the discrepancy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:12:40 AM
I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

Feel free to provide some of this "overwhelming evidence".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 22, 2021, 12:24:27 AM
Correction to my earlier post. That’s Arnold Rowland :)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:29:04 AM
But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

I'm not sure I can think of any evidentiary value of Oswald's prints being on curtain rods found anywhere.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:35:49 AM
You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

I have to agree.  It's just what "Richard" does when he asserts that his speculative narrative about the rifle is "evidence" and if you don't agree then the problem is your "standards of evidence", not his.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:45:22 AM
Then how do you explain this quote:

Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

That's not contradictory.  He said the same color as the heavy duty bags like you obtain from the grocery store.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2021, 12:48:55 AM
When exactly did somebody write the serial number on Waldman 07? Do you know?

We could perhaps settle all this by looking at the original microfilm and seeing if any other order on the reel had a serial number handwritten in on the "order blank" form.

Oh wait, we CAN'T.  It's "missing".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Rick Plant on February 24, 2021, 03:13:48 AM
Oswald already had curtain rods installed in his room according to his landlady and the rods are shown in this photo. What would be the need for him to be carrying rods around in a bag to work or needing new rods to be installed?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/67/0b/40670bca2925e16872ccbe379d91ad25.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 24, 2021, 04:01:22 AM
Oswald already had curtain rods installed in his room according to his landlady and the rods are shown in this photo. What would be the need for him to be carrying rods around in a bag to work or needing new rods to be installed?

Well, for one thing we don't know what place they would be for.  He and Marina had talked on Thursday evening about getting an apartment.

For another thing:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5EzGXCrrIQs/U3iNuSeXBiI/AAAAAAAA0Cs/enOSCvythBw/s1600/LHO-Room.jpg)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 24, 2021, 04:48:53 PM
All things in the contrarian fantasy world remain possible.  There are no facts.  Only endless rabbit hole possibilities.  So let us review:
 
-Oswald himself denies carrying any curtain rods. 
-There is no record of any curtain rods ever being found at the TSBD. 
-Truly confirms in Sept. '64 that no one at the TSBD ever found any curtain rods. 
-The acquisition of a couple of curtain rods is not an exigent circumstance necessitating haste.  As a result, there is no apparent reason for Oswald to make a special trip on Thursday to obtain curtain rods when he could have obtained them over the weekend per his usual weekend visit. 
-There is no indication that Oswald needed any curtain rods.  For example, he already has them at his boarding house.
-Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina about any curtain rods. 
-There is no indication any curtain rods are missing from the Paine household. 
-Oswald does not appear to have had any opportunity to purchase or obtain any such curtain rods from any other source on Thursday night. 

And yet, we should entertain the possibility that his long bag contained curtain rods because no witness had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag.  Wow.   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 24, 2021, 06:13:41 PM
All things in the contrarian fantasy world remain possible.  There are no facts.  Only endless rabbit hole possibilities.  So let us review:
 
-Oswald himself denies carrying any curtain rods. 
-There is no record of any curtain rods ever being found at the TSBD. 
-Truly confirms in Sept. '64 that no one at the TSBD ever found any curtain rods. 
-The acquisition of a couple of curtain rods is not an exigent circumstance necessitating haste.  As a result, there is no apparent reason for Oswald to make a special trip on Thursday to obtain curtain rods when he could have obtained them over the weekend per his usual weekend visit. 
-There is no indication that Oswald needed any curtain rods.  For example, he already has them at his boarding house.
-Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina about any curtain rods. 
-There is no indication any curtain rods are missing from the Paine household. 
-Oswald does not appear to have had any opportunity to purchase or obtain any such curtain rods from any other source on Thursday night. 

And yet, we should entertain the possibility that his long bag contained curtain rods because no witness had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag.  Wow.

And yet, we should entertain the possibility that his long bag contained curtain rods because no witness had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag.  Wow.

No. The content of the bag is of no importance unless it contained a broken down MC rifle. You can speculate all you like, and entertain any possibility, about what could have been in the bag, but the lack of an answer doesn't justify the conclusion that a rifle must have been in there.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 24, 2021, 07:33:34 PM
And yet, we should entertain the possibility that his long bag contained curtain rods because no witness had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag.  Wow.

No. The content of the bag is of no importance unless it contained a broken down MC rifle. You can speculate all you like, and entertain any possibility, about what could have been in the bag, but the lack of an answer doesn't justify the conclusion that a rifle must have been in there.

If you can accept from the totality of facts and known circumstances that it is extremely unlikely that Oswald carried any curtain rods in his bag, then you are on the road to enlightenment.  The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag if it contained some non-incriminating exculpatory item and why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 24, 2021, 08:08:30 PM
If you can accept from the totality of facts and known circumstances that it is extremely unlikely that Oswald carried any curtain rods in his bag, then you are on the road to enlightenment.  The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag if it contained some non-incriminating exculpatory item and why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle.

The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag

That's easy. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and persuade her to live with him again. That's not something you share with a 19 year old co-worker, like Frazier. It's far easier to tell a white lie about picking up some curtain rods.

why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle.

First of all, the quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question. In other words, if you ask Oswald what was in the "long bag" when he does not consider the bag long, he will reply with a denial of having carried a long bag. Secondly, Oswald wasn't shown the bag they found at the TSBD, nor was he asked if he had carried a broken down rifle in it, so he had no idea what size bag they were talking about. The interrogation reports are of no value to justify any kind of a conclusion regarding the bag Oswald actually carried and/or it's content.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 24, 2021, 09:17:33 PM
The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag

That's easy. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and persuade her to live with him again. That's not something you share with a 19 year old co-worker, like Frazier. It's far easier to tell a white lie about picking up some curtain rods.

why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle.

First of all, the quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question. In other words, if you ask Oswald what was in the "long bag" when he does not consider the bag long, he will reply with a denial of having carried a long bag. Secondly, Oswald wasn't shown the bag they found at the TSBD, nor was he asked if he had carried a broken down rifle in it, so he had no idea what size bag they were talking about. The interrogation reports are of no value to justify any kind of a conclusion regarding the bag Oswald actually carried and/or it's content.

Oswald wasn't shown the bag they found at the TSBD,

Yes, you're right Martin,  and isn't that strange?   We know they displayed a heavy weight brown paper bag to Buell Frazier, and he told them that the bag was not the flimsy light weight paper bag that he had seen on the rear seat of his car.

And they dis played the paper sack to Linnie Mae....and she also said that it wasn't the bag that she saw Lee carry that morning.....She said the bag that the FBI showed her was much longer than the bag Lee carried.   And indeed Lee couldn't have carried a three foot long bag in the manner that Linne Mae described.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 24, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
All things in the contrarian fantasy world remain possible.  There are no facts.  Only endless rabbit hole possibilities.

In “Richard Strawman Smith’s” fantasy world, his endless conjecture, speculation, and handwaving constitutes “facts”.

And we should accept his conjecture that the bag Frazier saw contained a broken down Mannlicher-Carcano rifle merely because “Richard” wants it to be so. Wow.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 24, 2021, 09:36:40 PM
They may very well have shown Oswald CE142 — maybe even handed it to him — and told him that Frazier said Oswald carried it into work that day (which would have been a lie). Oswald naturally denied carrying that bag.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2021, 10:58:21 PM
In CT Wonderland, the JFK Assassination Forum is a court of law.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 24, 2021, 10:58:56 PM
They may very well have shown Oswald CE142 — maybe even handed it to him — and told him that Frazier said Oswald carried it into work that day (which would have been a lie). Oswald naturally denied carrying that bag.

They may very well have shown Oswald CE142

This raises an interesting point....  When did Lt Day dust the brown paper with black finger print powder??   Clearly he would have had to have a reason to believe Lee had handled that paper.  ( it wasn't a bag)   Did Frazier ever say that the paper that he was shown had finger print powder on it??
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2021, 11:06:48 PM
And ever deeper goes the CTer rabbit hole bottomless pit of desperation.

You people.

 ::)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 12:25:01 AM
And indeed Lee couldn't have carried a three foot long bag in the manner that Linne Mae described.

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
-----------------------------------------------------

27" wouldn't come anywhere near the ground unless he was using it for a pole-vault
34.8" bag comes just above the ground
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 12:32:35 AM
'Almost touching the ground'--Randle
27" wouldn't come anywhere near the ground unless he using it for a pole-vault

Once again you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about this case.
Have you tried to hold a tape measure, set to 27'', in the way Randle described it? I seriously doubt it.
It does indeed almost touch the ground.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 01:24:51 AM
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
-----------------------------------------------------

27" wouldn't come anywhere near the ground unless he was using it for a pole-vault
34.8" bag comes just above the ground
Quote


He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me/

Thank you for displaying your obtuseness....

Only an idiot would believe that Linnie Mae could determine the weight of the brown paper from the distance on a dark and rainy morning.

27" wouldn't come anywhere near the ground unless he was using it for a pole-vault

Duh....Perhaps you should extract your head and LOOK at the BY photo It's a piece o cake to use the 40 inch rife with the distance to Lee's hip....  I believe that you'll find the distance is about 27 inches.....A 34.8 inch object would not fit in that space.

34.8" bag comes just above the ground 

This statement is true....For a man that is SEVEN feet tall.....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 01:57:24 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qdjn0cP5/34-8-Po-M001.png)

My working device
Device measures 34.6"
Close enough to 34.8"

Orange band at 27" leaves me (6'0") at least 8" to ground, for Oswald 5"
I wouldn't describe even 5" as 'almost touching the ground', let alone 8"

Randle's 'carry' description leaves some leeway re flexible hand, wrist and elbow positions.
'Like you do' does not cover a heavy rifle, and especially does not cover Oswald's probable intent to reduce the gun bag profile in the 'hood. And beyond.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 02:03:23 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qdjn0cP5/34-8-Po-M001.png)

My working device
Device measures 34.6"
Close enough to 34.8"

Orange band at 27" leaves me (6'0") at least 8" to ground, for Oswald 5"
I wouldn't describe even 5" as 'almost touching the ground', let alone 8"

Randle's 'carry' description leaves some leeway re hand, wrist and elbow positions.
'Like you do' does not cover a heavy rifle, and does not cover Oswalds probable intent to reduce 'eyes on' in an attempt to reduce the gun bag profile.

I wouldn't describe even 5" as 'almost touching the ground',

But Randle, who was watching from a distance, did.

If the package had indeed been 34.8" it would have reached, from the ground, to well above Oswald's hip. An impossible way to carry the package as described by Randle.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 02:50:09 AM
I wouldn't describe even 5" as 'almost touching the ground',

But Randle, who was watching from a distance, did.

If the package had indeed been 34.8" it would have reached, from the ground, to well above Oswald's hip. An impossible way to carry the package as described by Randle.

I wouldn't describe even 5" as 'almost touching the ground',

But Randle, who was watching from a distance, did.

If the package had indeed been 34.8" it would have reached, from the ground, to well above Oswald's hip. An impossible way to carry the package as described by Randle.

As described by Randle. Well after the event. After fists & jaws were clenched.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 03:11:15 AM
As described by Randle. Well after the event. After fists & jaws were clenched.

Twist and turn all you want, but it's her testimony (and that of Buell Frazier) over your speculation to reach a predetermined conclusion.

The fact remains, and anybody who tries it will find out, that a bag of 27" will nearly reach the ground when carried, by a person's of Oswald's height, in the manner described by Randle. A 34.8" simply does not fit.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 03:36:54 AM
In CT Wonderland, the JFK Assassination Forum is a court of law.

In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 03:39:56 AM
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
-----------------------------------------------------

27" wouldn't come anywhere near the ground unless he was using it for a pole-vault
34.8" bag comes just above the ground

Chapman unloads his BS with such certainty.  That all depends on how the package was carried.  I suppose Chapman pretends he knows what "carried it this way" means too.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 03:41:48 AM
'Like you do' does not cover a heavy rifle, and especially does not cover Oswald's probable intent to reduce the gun bag profile in the 'hood. And beyond.

"Oswald's probable intent".  LOL.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 07:39:49 AM
Pretty sure Oswald's arm wasn't paralyzed and could bend and raise at the elbow. There's your first clue.

Now, can somebody produce a re-enact of Randle's exact view of Oswald as she watched him carry the package. And how long did she watch him and was her observation of him unbroken, continuous, or did she just glance. After all, no reason to study a package unless something gave an onlooker an impression that the carrier of said package was attempting to at least partially conceal it. Not too smart carrying a package that might appear sizable enough to carry a rifle on the day that the POTUS was scheduled to ride around downtown in a freakin' convertible.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 07:48:04 AM
"Oswald's probable intent".  LOL.

And possible lane-change into bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns alley, spurred by Randle, due to the optics of the 'bro being the wheelman who delivered the prime suspect to the killing field.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.

Order in the court!
Order in the court!
Speak, monkey, speak!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 08:52:47 AM
In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.

Nah, not the entire forum, just the CT crowd, encamped as they are out there on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 09:19:20 AM
Twist and turn all you want, but it's her testimony (and that of Buell Frazier) over your speculation to reach a predetermined conclusion.

The fact remains, and anybody who tries it will find out, that a bag of 27" will nearly reach the ground when carried, by a person's of Oswald's height, in the manner described by Randle. A 34.8" simply does not fit.

Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 12:30:13 PM
Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.

Could?

Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground.

Try to keep it at least somewhat realistic. Try carrying such a package in that way and you'll soon find out just how uncomfortable that is.

Also, you're not looking at the entire picture. Frazier described a package that fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and underneath his should. Randle described a package that nearly touched the ground which fits perfectly with a 27" inch package. Neither description works with a 34.8" package.

And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'

Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?
Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. And you saw him walking along, did you?

<>

Mr. BALL. He walked over to your house, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I saw him as he started crossing the street. Where he come from then I couldn't say.
Mr. BALL. You don't know where he went from that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Where he went?
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 25, 2021, 03:10:13 PM
The next step on your journey to reality is to ask why Oswald would lie to Frazier about the contents of his bag

That's easy. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and persuade her to live with him again. That's not something you share with a 19 year old co-worker, like Frazier. It's far easier to tell a white lie about picking up some curtain rods.

why he would deny carrying any such long bag to the police if that bag actually existed and could be found in the building to confirm that it did not contain a rifle.

First of all, the quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question. In other words, if you ask Oswald what was in the "long bag" when he does not consider the bag long, he will reply with a denial of having carried a long bag. Secondly, Oswald wasn't shown the bag they found at the TSBD, nor was he asked if he had carried a broken down rifle in it, so he had no idea what size bag they were talking about. The interrogation reports are of no value to justify any kind of a conclusion regarding the bag Oswald actually carried and/or it's content.

That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.  In fact, he apparently didn't even know Oswald's last name until after the assassination.  HA HA HA.  That one is a keep.  You are venturing off again down the rabbit hole.  Focus.  If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.  We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 25, 2021, 04:11:53 PM
The Oswald defenders tie themselves up in absurdities with their defense of their man. The excuse here is that he wanted curtain rods for an apartment that he hadn't even rented yet. How did he know the new apartment needed curtain rods? Answer: he couldn't. He hadn't even rented one yet or even looked for one.

Remember that he left his wedding ring and $170 - nearly all of his money - with Marina when he left the morning of the assassination. Why did he do this?: The Oswald defenders say he was splitting up with her. He was moving on.

If he's splitting up with her - and that's why he left the wedding ring and money - then he doesn't need curtain rods since he's NOT getting an apartment for Marina. They are separating.

And if he's getting an apartment he's going to need his money. Every apartment I've rented required a security deposit - usually a month's rent or another fee. But he can't get that apartment since he left his money back with Marina.

It's all illogical and inconsistent and is a desperate attempt to wish away the evidence indicating that he brought his rifle in the bag. This may work with one juror in a trial. But it's not going to work with reasonably intelligent people who aren't devoted to defending this miserable man.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 04:12:13 PM
Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.

Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground.

Can you tell us how Linnie Mae described the manner in which Lee carried the sack?

If you're afraid to do that ...I'll post it....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 04:39:09 PM
That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.  In fact, he apparently didn't even know Oswald's last name until after the assassination.  HA HA HA.  That one is a keep.  You are venturing off again down the rabbit hole.  Focus.  If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.  We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing.

That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.

There is no cover up at all, unless you assume that the bag found at the TSBD is the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning. Unfortunately for you, there isn't a shred of evidence that this was indeed the case, so all the BS of making a bag from TSBD materials to "cover up" his white lie to Frazier is nothing more than a baseless theory.

If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.

More selfserving BS based on nothing else but assumptions. If Oswald lied to Frazier and the bag did not contain curtain rods it could have contained something else that Oswald did not want to share with Frazier simply because that would result in him having to admit he previously lied.

We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing.

More conjecture based on assumptions. If you make enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like. Just because you assume that the MC rifle was indeed stored in Ruth Paine's garage and just because you assume that the MC rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald doesn't mean that the conclusion you draw from that is anything else but an assumption also.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 04:47:25 PM
The Oswald defenders tie themselves up in absurdities with their defense of their man. The excuse here is that he wanted curtain rods for an apartment that he hadn't even rented yet. How did he know the new apartment needed curtain rods? Answer: he couldn't. He hadn't even rented one yet or even looked for one.

How in the world do you know that Oswald had not "even looked for one"? He, in fact, may well have found one already and that could well be the reason from him to go to Irving; to find out if he should rent it, which would only make sense if Marina agreed to live with him again.

Quote
Remember that he left his wedding ring and $170 - nearly all of his money - with Marina when he left the morning of the assassination. Why did he do this?: The Oswald defenders say he was splitting up with her. He was moving on.

Which Oswald defender said that? The opposite is true. Marina refused to get back together with him.

Quote
If he's splitting up with her - and that's why he left the wedding ring and money - then he doesn't need curtain rods since he's NOT getting an apartment for Marina. They are separating.

Indeed. And in order to find out if he should rent an appartement for him and Marina, he needed to talk to her first. Hence the trip to Irving. Makes sense, right?

Quote
And if he's getting an apartment he's going to need his money. Every apartment I've rented required a security deposit - usually a month's rent or another fee. But he can't get that apartment since he left his money back with Marina.

And what if he left the money with Marina for the kids because he found out he didn't need it to rent an appartment after all?

Quote
It's all illogical and inconsistent and is a desperate attempt to wish away the evidence indicating that he brought his rifle in the bag. This may work with one juror in a trial. But it's not going to work with reasonably intelligent people who aren't devoted to defending this miserable man.

What evidence is there that he brought his rifle in the bag? Please be precise!

Btw the only thing that is illogical and inconsistent is your "reasoning"
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 04:48:54 PM
Could?

Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground.

Try to keep it at least somewhat realistic. Try carrying such a package in that way and you'll soon find out just how uncomfortable that is.

Also, you're not looking at the entire picture. Frazier described a package that fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and underneath his should. Randle described a package that nearly touched the ground which fits perfectly with a 27" inch package. Neither description works with a 34.8" package.

And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'

Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?
Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. And you saw him walking along, did you?

<>

Mr. BALL. He walked over to your house, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I saw him as he started crossing the street. Where he come from then I couldn't say.
Mr. BALL. You don't know where he went from that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Where he went?
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen. But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen. But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so

There was no rifle in that bag......

The model 91/38 Carcano weighs 7 pounds 7 ounces without a scope or leather sling.....  I believe the TSBD carcano weighed nearly 9 pounds.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 06:27:46 PM
Pretty sure Oswald's arm wasn't paralyzed and could bend and raise at the elbow. There's your first clue.

Pretty sure you're the one with no clue, Mr. "Other Frazier".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 06:29:24 PM
Oswald could hoist it up. Holding a package the way Randle described didn't rule out bending one's elbow enough to keep 34.8" a little off the ground. And tell us how far away Oswald was when 'she saw him at a distance'.

"didn't rule out".  LOL.

Talk about making what she said mean whatever you want it to mean...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 06:33:05 PM
That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.

...and your evidence that Oswald took wrapping paper from his building, hid it on his person, made a giant bag out of it, and then carried it to work is . . .?

Oh yeah, you don't have any.

Quote
If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.

"Richard" often confuses his own personal speculation bus with "evidence".

"logical conclusion".  LOL.

"belonging to Oswald".  LOL.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 06:39:45 PM
The Oswald defenders tie themselves up in absurdities with their defense of their man. The excuse here is that he wanted curtain rods for an apartment that he hadn't even rented yet. How did he know the new apartment needed curtain rods? Answer: he couldn't. He hadn't even rented one yet or even looked for one.

And you know this how?

Quote
Remember that he left his wedding ring and $170 - nearly all of his money - with Marina when he left the morning of the assassination. Why did he do this?: The Oswald defenders say he was splitting up with her. He was moving on.

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?

Quote
And if he's getting an apartment he's going to need his money. Every apartment I've rented required a security deposit - usually a month's rent or another fee. But he can't get that apartment since he left his money back with Marina.

a) you don't know that this was all his money
b) you don't know whether or not he would still want to have an apartment instead of renting a room

Quote
It's all illogical and inconsistent and is a desperate attempt to wish away the evidence indicating that he brought his rifle in the bag.

There is none.

The reason for alternate explanations is to counter the irrational notion that leaving a wedding ring behind CAN ONLY MEAN that he was planning to shoot the president.  That's patently absurd.

Quote
This may work with one juror in a trial. But it's not going to work with reasonably intelligent people who aren't devoted to defending this miserable man.

"Reasonably intelligent people" defined as those who agree with Steve Galbraith's assumptions.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen. But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

"hurried to get the package out of sight".  LOL.  You sure like to make things up, don't you?

Quote
Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

So stop pretending that Randle's description of how he carried the package tells you anything different from her own length estimate.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 25, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
From "Marina and Lee":

"Marina later made a terrible discovery [after the police left from their search of the Paine's home]. She happened to glance at the bureau and saw that, again by a miracle of oversight, the police had left another of her possessions behind. It was a delicate demitasse cup of pale blue-green with violets and a slender golden rim that had belonged to her grandmother. It was so thin that the light glowed through it as if it were parchment. Marina looked inside. There lay Lee's wedding ring.

"Oh, no", she thought, and heart sank again. Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs. She had seen him wearing it the night before......"

Again: He took it off and placed it in Marina's demitasse cup. And he left nearly all of his money. Marina said he would leave a few dollars for her on Monday when he returned to his rooming house. But not $170. And it wasn't Monday that he left her the money. It was the day of the assassination. Even though, she said, he told her he was going to see her on Saturday.

No, for the Oswald defenders, it's NOT proof he shot JFK. No one has made that claim of proof. But it is, as Marina said, acts that were extraordinary for him.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2021, 07:40:43 PM
From "Marina and Lee":

"Marina later made a terrible discovery [after the police left from their search of the Paine's home]. She happened to glance at the bureau and saw that, again by a miracle of oversight, the police had left another of her possessions behind. It was a delicate demitasse cup of pale blue-green with violets and a slender golden rim that had belonged to her grandmother. It was so thin that the light glowed through it as if it were parchment. Marina looked inside. There lay Lee's wedding ring.

"Oh, no", she thought, and heart sank again. Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs. She had seen him wearing it the night before......"

Again: He took it off and placed it in Marina's demitasse cup. And he left nearly all of his money. Marina said he would leave a few dollars for her on Monday when he returned to his rooming house. But not $170. And it wasn't Monday that he left her the money. It was the day of the assassination. Even though, she said, he told her he was going to see her on Saturday.

No, for the Oswald defenders, it's NOT proof he shot JFK. No one has made that claim of proof. But it is, as Marina said, acts that were extraordinary for him.

Finding out that your wife does not want to live with you again and thus concluding that your marriage is over is also not an every day event in a person's life. An extraordinary event causes extraordinary behavior.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 08:42:27 PM
And you know this how?

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?

a) you don't know that this was all his money
b) you don't know whether or not he would still want to have an apartment instead of renting a room

There is none.

The reason for alternate explanations is to counter the irrational notion that leaving a wedding ring behind CAN ONLY MEAN that he was planning to shoot the president.  That's patently absurd.

"Reasonably intelligent people" defined as those who agree with Steve Gailbraith's assumptions.

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?

It's good enough for simple minds......
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 25, 2021, 09:42:26 PM
From "Marina and Lee":

"Marina later made a terrible discovery [after the police left from their search of the Paine's home]. She happened to glance at the bureau and saw that, again by a miracle of oversight, the police had left another of her possessions behind. It was a delicate demitasse cup of pale blue-green with violets and a slender golden rim that had belonged to her grandmother. It was so thin that the light glowed through it as if it were parchment. Marina looked inside. There lay Lee's wedding ring.

"Oh, no", she thought, and heart sank again. Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs. She had seen him wearing it the night before......"

Again: He took it off and placed it in Marina's demitasse cup. And he left nearly all of his money. Marina said he would leave a few dollars for her on Monday when he returned to his rooming house. But not $170. And it wasn't Monday that he left her the money. It was the day of the assassination. Even though, she said, he told her he was going to see her on Saturday.

No, for the Oswald defenders, it's NOT proof he shot JFK. No one has made that claim of proof. But it is, as Marina said, acts that were extraordinary for him.


Priscilla Johnson McMillan spun quite a yarn in 1977 didn't she?  Marina and Ruth couldn't even agree on who it was who found the ring, or when.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 09:50:59 PM
From "Marina and Lee":

"Marina later made a terrible discovery [after the police left from their search of the Paine's home]. She happened to glance at the bureau and saw that, again by a miracle of oversight, the police had left another of her possessions behind. It was a delicate demitasse cup of pale blue-green with violets and a slender golden rim that had belonged to her grandmother. It was so thin that the light glowed through it as if it were parchment. Marina looked inside. There lay Lee's wedding ring.

"Oh, no", she thought, and heart sank again. Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs. She had seen him wearing it the night before......"

Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.

Again: He took it off and placed it in Marina's demitasse cup. And he left nearly all of his money. Marina said he would leave a few dollars for her on Monday when he returned to his rooming house. But not $170. And it wasn't Monday that he left her the money. It was the day of the assassination. Even though, she said, he told her he was going to see her on Saturday.

No, for the Oswald defenders, it's NOT proof he shot JFK. No one has made that claim of proof. But it is, as Marina said, acts that were extraordinary for him.

From "Marina and Lee":

"Marina later made a terrible discovery [after the police left from their search of the Paine's home]. She happened to glance at the bureau and saw that, again by a miracle of oversight, the police had left another of her possessions behind. It was a delicate demitasse cup of pale blue-green with violets and a slender golden rim that had belonged to her grandmother. It was so thin that the light glowed through it as if it were parchment. Marina looked inside. There lay Lee's wedding ring.


Watta CROCK!....

Lee never took his wedding ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.

Lee never took his Marine corps ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.  Now I ask you ....What kinda turncoat Marine would continue to wear an emblem of an organization that he allegedly hated ...hmmmmm?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2021, 10:45:55 PM

Priscilla Johnson McMillan spun quite a yarn in 1977 didn't she?  Marina and Ruth couldn't even agree on who it was who found the ring, or when.

Priscilla Johnson McMillan spun quite a yarn in 1977 didn't she?

Plausible tales are a hallmark of a good intel agent... Ms Johnson was CIA....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2021, 11:53:24 PM
And yet you lot argue, on other occasions when it appears to y'all to be to your advantage to do so, that she wouldn't have been able to see what he was doing at the car through those thin spaces between the boards in the wall.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Now tell us how heavy curtain rods or a small lunch would be. The gun bag package was 7-8lbs or so and yes, would be awkward to carry in an awkward manner by the average citizen.

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?

But Oswald was young & fit, carrying (often heavy) boxes of books around all day. A guilty Oswald would have every reason to mask the profile of the weapon no matter how uncomfortable his method-of-carry might be during those few moments as he hurried to get the package out of sight.

A guilty Oswald? Lol

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Oswald's movements as described by Randle as he approached do not reveal whether-or-not elbow bend factored in to the point that the 34.8 length would fit the bill, like it does in real time with my own 34.8" device.

Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

Stop trying to change the subject
Stop dodging. Are you saying Randle could see what Oswald was doing at the car or not?

How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?
So you're claiming its not feasible, then. Thanks so much for your always-useful input.

A guilty Oswald? Lol
As opposed to a non-guilty Oswald.
(Think 'proof of concept')

Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?
Really. In this case, it takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?
Really. Bottom line is that no one paid attention to the package.

In addition. the ‘empty street’ had houses and the houses had windows and people with eyeballs with which to peer out of those windows. Again, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

“Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long”
Certainly not anywhere nearly as long as having to deal (for the rest of her life) with the optics of being remembered by the genpop as the sister of the driver who drove Oswald to the killing field.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 26, 2021, 12:08:48 AM
Stop trying to change the subject
Stop dodging. Are you saying Randle could see what Oswald was doing at the car or not?

Don't know, don't care. And totally irrelevant, as we know from Buell Frazier where the package was.

Quote
How in the world would you know what the weight of the package was that Oswald carried?
So you're claiming its not feasible, then. Thanks so much for your always-useful input.

No, I am claiming that you don't know the weight of the package that Oswald carried

Quote
A guilty Oswald? Lol
As opposed to a non-guilty Oswald.
(Think 'proof of concept')

I'd rather think; actual evidence, and start with somebody being innocent until proven guilty, instead of being pressumed to be guilty from the outset based on vague assumptions that something is feasible.

Quote
Do you think before you post? We're talking about Irving on a Friday morning with hardly anybody around, yet you claim Oswald felt the need to "mask the profile of the weapon".... Really?
Most likely. In this case, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

Most likely? LOL...

Quote
So, let's see what you are actually saying here; Oswald carried a 34.8" package on an empty street in an uncomfortable manner to mask the profile of the weapon, but then puts it in plain sight on the back seat of Frazier's car, only to take it out of the car in Dallas and carry it in the cup of hand and underneath his shoulder. And that actually makes sense to you? Really?
Really. Bottom line is that no one paid attention to the package.

Randle paid enough attention to see the package nearly reaching the ground and Buell Frazier paid enough attention to see the package on the back seat and to see Oswald put it in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.

Quote
In addition. the ‘empty street’ had houses and the houses had windows and people with eyeballs with which to peer out of those windows. Again, It takes only one extra set of ‘eyes on’ to double the witness count.

It doesn't make sense that Oswald, as you claim, was on his guard for witnesses in an empty street of Irving at around 7 o'clock in the morning, but wasn't when he got to Dallas, at around 8, when there were far more people around.

Quote
“Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long”
Certainly not anywhere nearly as long as having to deal (for the rest of her life) with the optics of being remembered by the genpop as the sister of the driver who drove Oswald to the killing field.

BS
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 26, 2021, 02:38:12 AM
That's quite an elaborate cover up.  Oswald would have to take wrapping paper from his building, hide it on his person, make a giant bag out of it, and then carry it to work all as a cover story for his domestic problems for "Gomer" Frazier who had forgotten all about the curtain rod story until he saw the bag and didn't give a fig about Oswald's personal life.

There is no cover up at all, unless you assume that the bag found at the TSBD is the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning. Unfortunately for you, there isn't a shred of evidence that this was indeed the case, so all the BS of making a bag from TSBD materials to "cover up" his white lie to Frazier is nothing more than a baseless theory.

If Oswald did not carry any curtain rods as appears to be the case, then he lied to Frazier about the contents of his bag.  He had something else in the bag that he considered incriminatory.

More selfserving BS based on nothing else but assumptions. If Oswald lied to Frazier and the bag did not contain curtain rods it could have contained something else that Oswald did not want to share with Frazier simply because that would result in him having to admit he previously lied.

We don't have to eliminate every object on planet Earth at that time to reach a logical conclusion about the contents of his bag.   What is identified as missing from the Paine household that is long and narrow?  What long and narrow object belonging to Oswald is found at the TSBD?  What object would be incriminatory to him under the circumstances such that he would lie to both Frazier and the DPD?   There is only one thing.

More conjecture based on assumptions. If you make enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like. Just because you assume that the MC rifle was indeed stored in Ruth Paine's garage and just because you assume that the MC rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald doesn't mean that the conclusion you draw from that is anything else but an assumption also.

So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.  We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.  Oswald's universe was finite and limited to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle. Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.  Where is it found?  At Oswald's place of employment.  This is not difficult.  There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.  Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 26, 2021, 02:39:56 AM
Friends, this document gives us excellent grounds for believing that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository at some point after the assassination----------

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Here is an interesting incident told by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier to the authors of the new book The Lone Star Speaks:

If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination.
She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true. If this woman knew the truth, other people did, too.

It is well known that the curtain rods were found on November 22, 1963. They were found between some boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD in the NW area near the stairs. They were Italian made and were fully assembled into a single unit. They had been designed to provide curtains for Allies in WWII and Oswald used them for a similar purpose.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 26, 2021, 03:03:48 AM
So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.  We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.  Oswald's universe was finite and limited to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle. Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.  Where is it found?  At Oswald's place of employment.  This is not difficult.  There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.  Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

There are no "assumptions" here.

Oh yes there are. You just call them "evidence"

This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.

No it isn't. There is no testimony whatsoever that connects the bag found at the TSBD to the bag Oswald carried that morning.

Btw, what exactly is "based upon the testimony" and "physical evidence" if not mere assumptions?

Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.

That's an assumption

We do not need a time machine, witness with x-ray vision, or the need to eliminate every possible object on planet Earth to reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of Oswald's bag.

Translation of "reach a reasonable conclusion" = a speculative assumption based on bias

The object therein must come from the Paine household.

Why? Another assumption

What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.

Multiple assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever;

Assumption 1: There was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
Assumption 2: That the rifle was a Mannlicher–Carcano
Assumption 3: Oswald took that rifle

What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle.

Another assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever to determine where the MC rifle found at the TSBD came from.

Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.

Says who?

There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.

BS

Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

Then prove me wrong by providing some actual evidence rather than all sorts of wild speculations based on nothing but your own bias.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2021, 03:46:16 AM
So many rabbit holes.  There are no "assumptions" here.

Who are you trying to kid?  It nothing but one giant assumption.

Quote
  This is based upon the testimony of those present at the actual events and the physical evidence.  Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work for the reasons discussed.

You don't know what he carried to work.

Quote
He carries a long, narrow package to work that morning.  The object therein must come from the Paine household.  What is missing from the Paine household the next day that is long and narrow?  A rifle.  What is found at the TSBD that came from the Paine residence?  A rifle.

Sorry, "Richard".  You don't know a rifle was at the Paine residence the night before.  Or ever.

Quote
Who did this rifle belong too?  Oswald.

LOL.

Quote
There is no real controversy about Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he carried it to the TSBD on the 11.22.63 beyond the outlier CTer kook nonsense.  It is an acknowledged fact based upon the overwhelming facts and known circumstances.

Nope.  It's another "Richard Smith" speculation and nothing more.

Quote
Just playing contrarian and saying it ain't so over and over again is weak sauce.

And calling your made-up nonsense "facts" and "evidence" over and over again is really weak sauce.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2021, 03:55:03 AM
It is well known that the curtain rods were found on November 22, 1963. They were found between some boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD in the NW area near the stairs. They were Italian made and were fully assembled into a single unit. They had been designed to provide curtains for Allies in WWII and Oswald used them for a similar purpose.

hahahaha
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 26, 2021, 03:28:16 PM
hahahaha
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work

Andrew's sarcasm has gone completely over your head, hasn't it?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2021, 09:27:22 PM
The only witness I can think of is Rowland Arnold describing the elderly
“negro” man at SE 5th foot window wearing a plaid shirt , red and green. The man  was probably Bonnie Ray Williams although it’s questionable if the young BRW could appear as elderly to Rowland because of dust fallen on his hair.

BRW could appear as elderly to Rowland because of dust fallen on his hair.

That's an interesting idea Mr M,.....  But I believe that Rowland said the man that he saw was on the sixth floor, and not hanging out of a window.... As BRW was.    And since you've opened that can-o-worms.....Can you offer ant plausible reason that  BRW would have received that "cement and piece of brick, and some white powder " on his head.

P.S. please don't cite the silly WC explanation .......
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2021, 07:47:18 AM
And you know this how?

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?

a) you don't know that this was all his money
b) you don't know whether or not he would still want to have an apartment instead of renting a room

There is none.

The reason for alternate explanations is to counter the irrational notion that leaving a wedding ring behind CAN ONLY MEAN that he was planning to shoot the president.  That's patently absurd.

"Reasonably intelligent people" defined as those who agree with Steve Galbraith's assumptions.

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
>This is supposed to be evidence that he left his ring and $170.00 behind, Slick.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2021, 04:13:22 PM
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
>This is supposed to be evidence that he left his ring and $170.00 behind, Slick.
[
/quote]

This is supposed to be evidence that he left his ring and $170.00 behind, Slick.

I assume there's no possibility that he simply forgot those items .....  There has to be some sinister motive ...right?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 27, 2021, 08:49:06 PM
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
>This is supposed to be evidence that he left his ring and $170.00 behind, Slick.
I assume there's no possibility that he simply forgot those items .....  There has to be some sinister motive ...right?
Sure there is a possibility. It is just that the more of these "coincidences" one has, the less believable it is that they are "coincidences".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2021, 09:12:36 PM
I assume there's no possibility that he simply forgot those items .....  There has to be some sinister motive ...right?
Sure there is a possibility. It is just that the more of these "coincidences" one has, the less believable it is that they are "coincidences".

Andy, Would you believe that there was nothing sinister about the act of Leaving $170 and his wedding band in the tea cup? 

What would it take to convince you that IF ( I ask IF??) Lee actually left the items there that it may have been the act of an intel agent who knew that he was embarking on a very dangerous mission ....One in which he might not return.

I'd ask you to recall the note he left for Marina when he set off to fire a bullet through Walker's window on April 10, 1963..

I left you as much money as I could. $60 on the second of the month, and you and Junie can live for two months on $10 a week.

If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is at the end of the bridge we always used to cross when we went to town. 

In participating in the Walker hoax, Lee recognized that he was participating in a very dangerous game ( one in which he could be killed)

Lee also recognized that this mission ( a staged attempt to shoot JFK was extremely dangerous) and he might get killed ...
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 27, 2021, 09:29:51 PM
I assume there's no possibility that he simply forgot those items .....  There has to be some sinister motive ...right?

Sure there is a possibility. It is just that the more of these "coincidences" one has, the less believable it is that they are "coincidences".

Would you agree that the more descrepancies there are in the evidence, the less believable the narrative becomes?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 06:29:20 AM
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
>This is supposed to be evidence that he left his ring and $170.00 behind, Slick.

So what?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 06:31:22 AM
I assume there's no possibility that he simply forgot those items .....  There has to be some sinister motive ...right?
Sure there is a possibility. It is just that the more of these "coincidences" one has, the less believable it is that they are "coincidences".

You can take any two random unrelated occurrences and call it a “coincidence”. That doesn’t make it remarkable.

Lee Oswald had a cup of instant coffee that morning. What a coincidence!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 12:40:02 PM
So what?

You asked. I schooled you.
That's 'so what', cowboy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 28, 2021, 12:42:44 PM
You asked. I schooled you.
That's 'so what', cowboy.

Lost for words = back to insults?

Pathetic
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 01:04:31 PM
You can take any two random unrelated occurrences and call it a “coincidence”. That doesn’t make it remarkable.

Lee Oswald had a cup of instant coffee that morning. What a coincidence!

Lee Oswald just happened to in attendance at both murder scenes as the bullets were flying. What a coincidence!
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 01:46:51 PM
Lost for words = back to insults?

Pathetic

What insult
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 06:27:48 PM
You asked. I schooled you.
That's 'so what', cowboy.

You’ve never schooled a single person here on a single assassination-related subject, Mr. “Other Frazier”.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 06:29:46 PM
Lee Oswald just happened to in attendance at both murder scenes as the bullets were flying. What a coincidence!

Sure he was. If Chapman says it, it becomes a fact.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 28, 2021, 06:38:12 PM
Andy, Would you believe that there was nothing sinister about the act of Leaving $170 and his wedding band in the tea cup? 

What would it take to convince you that IF ( I ask IF??) Lee actually left the items there that it may have been the act of an intel agent who knew that he was embarking on a very dangerous mission ....One in which he might not return.
IF that was the case I would expect to find evidence a)  that Oswald had the qualities that an agency engaged in covert intelligence gathering would be seeking, and  2) that he was actually working for such an agency and being paid.  So far, I haven't found any such evidence..   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on February 28, 2021, 07:27:17 PM
The same old tired contrarian game of ring around the rosie.  They scoff at Oswald's having left his wedding ring and large amount of money with Marina on the morning of the assassination.  In a complete vacuum if that were the only evidence and circumstance to link him to the crime, it might not be persuasive.  Of course it is not the only evidence.  Oswald made an unexpected trip to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  The place where Marina confirms that he kept his rifle.  He carries a long package to work the next morning. His rifle is missing from the Paine residence when searched later that day. His rifle and fired bullet casings from his rifle are found at his place of employment where he was taken with his long bag that morning.  He was seen to enter that building.  His prints are on a long bag found next to the SN on the same floor as his rifle.  Oswald flees the building and is implicated in the murder of a police officer within an hour.  In the totality of all these circumstance, the wedding ring and money take on much greater significance.  Only a contrarian fool would suggest that they are meaningless and analyze them in a complete void separate and apart from the totality of evidence.  But that is why they are contrarians. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 07:38:00 PM
Sure he was. If Chapman says it, it becomes a fact.

Re bullets flying around at Oswald's personal target range on Elm St, the little prick was either downstairs chomping on a 34.8" sandwich, or upstairs tending to somewhat loftier ambitions.

Re bullets flying @Tippit, Oswald was spotted shooting Officer JD Tippit.

Poor dumb cop.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2021, 07:39:19 PM
IF that was the case I would expect to find evidence a)  that Oswald had the qualities that an agency engaged in covert intelligence gathering would be seeking, and  2) that he was actually working for such an agency and being paid.  So far, I haven't found any such evidence..

Actually Andy, The agent who handled payroll for the CIA ....  Recalled paying Lee Oswald....
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 07:51:54 PM
The same old tired “Richard” game of calling speculation “evidence” and making claims about the evidence that just aren’t true.

Marina didn’t “confirm he kept his rifle there”. There’s no evidence that they were “his bullet casings”. No evidence that the rifle allegedly found in the sixth floor was Oswald’s rifle or was ever in the Paine garage. No evidence that the “long bag” was on the sixth floor when the so-called “sniper’s nest” was discovered or that this was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying, or that it ever had a rifle in it. Add up a whole bunch of speculation and you wind up with nothing more than speculation.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 07:53:55 PM
Re bullets flying around at Oswald's personal target range on Elm St, the little prick was either downstairs chomping on a 34.8" sandwich, or upstairs tending to somewhat loftier ambitions.

Re bullets flying @Tippit, Oswald was spotted shooting Officer JD Tippit, who was apparently referred to, moments later, by Oswald (aka Dirty Harvey*) as a 'poor dumb cop'

*Smith, Wesson... and Lee

Your dad’s a little prick.

Nobody ever claimed Oswald chomped on a 34.8” sandwich, clown-boy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 08:11:36 PM
Your dad’s a little prick.

Nobody ever claimed Oswald chomped on a 34.8” sandwich, clown-boy.

You lot are worth nothing more than mockery
Oswald#owns#U
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 08:22:36 PM
You lot are worth nothing more than mockery
Oswald#owns#U

You don’t do mockery any better than you know the evidence in the case.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 08:37:59 PM
You’ve never schooled a single person here on a single assassination-related subject, Mr. “Other Frazier”.

Not my bad if the Oswald-besotted are rather dim-witted, JudgeJohnny.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2021, 08:47:31 PM
You don’t do mockery any better than you know the evidence in the case.

Who made you the arbiter as to what passes as evidence, JudgeJohnny*

*mockery
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2021, 10:58:24 PM
Why don’t you ask the other Frazier?  :D

Feel free to even once explain any rationale behind the pithy statements you just declare as fact, clown-boy.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2021, 03:17:51 AM
Why don’t you ask the other Frazier?  :D

Feel free to even once explain any rationale behind the pithy statements you just declare as fact, clown-boy.

WOW... clown-boy?
Really? I'm so hurt*

*sarcasm

The rationale is abundantly obvious
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2021, 03:22:39 AM
The rationale is abundantly obvious

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f84770bdc363141e28211a5a8073a63d/tenor.gif)

You are such an utter waste of bandwidth.

And oxygen.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2021, 03:26:16 AM
The same old tired contrarian game of ring around the rosie.  They scoff at Oswald's having left his wedding ring and large amount of money with Marina on the morning of the assassination.  In a complete vacuum if that were the only evidence and circumstance to link him to the crime, it might not be persuasive.  Of course it is not the only evidence.  Oswald made an unexpected trip to the Paine household on the night before the assassination.  The place where Marina confirms that he kept his rifle.  He carries a long package to work the next morning. His rifle is missing from the Paine residence when searched later that day. His rifle and fired bullet casings from his rifle are found at his place of employment where he was taken with his long bag that morning.  He was seen to enter that building.  His prints are on a long bag found next to the SN on the same floor as his rifle.  Oswald flees the building and is implicated in the murder of a police officer within an hour.  In the totality of all these circumstance, the wedding ring and money take on much greater significance.  Only a contrarian fool would suggest that they are meaningless and analyze them in a complete void separate and apart from the totality of evidence.  But that is why they are contrarians.

And that's a wrap!
Good essay..
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2021, 03:51:14 AM
You are such an utter waste of bandwidth.

And oxygen.

You are such an utter waste of bandwidth.
Boo-hoo. I"m devastated.

And oxygen
hahahahahaha

And yet here you are, still posting to me after all these years

(Note that I've trashed your cartoon
You know.. bandwidth issues)
 ;)
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2021, 12:04:01 AM
So, still no one out there able to make safe a document that makes unsafe the claim that no curtain rods were found in the Depository after the assassination?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)

Interesting..............
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 06, 2021, 04:53:46 AM
Earlier in the thread...
I agree ....You're right, We don't KNOW for sure that Lee denied transporting curtain rods...  However I believe he did.   I believe the curtain rod tale started with Linnie Mae Randle who had innocuously got her brother Buell involved by  attempting to get her "15 minutes of fame" when she went to the Paine residence and told the police that she had seen Lee Oswald ( who had already been reported to be the assassin on TV and radio ) carrying a long paper sack that morning.  ( suggesting that he had a rifle in that paper sack)   After that blew up in her face when the cops said that they could charge Buell with being an accessory to the crime, they made up the story about Lee telling Buell that the sack contained curtain rods.
If it hasn't been mentioned... Fritz noted that Oswald stated that he did not tell Frazier about any purpose of going to Irving and bringing curtain rods or any package to work that day.
https://jfkwitnesses.omeka.net/items/show/235     7 pages down
   
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Colin Crow on March 06, 2021, 05:24:00 AM
Earlier in the thread...If it hasn't been mentioned... Fritz noted that Oswald stated that he did not tell Frazier about any purpose of going to Irving and bringing curtain rods or any package to work that day.
https://jfkwitnesses.omeka.net/items/show/235     7 pages down
   

Maybe ask why Buell needed to hide about 3 hours that afternoon. The bag was known about between 2 and 3pm. When did Linnie May talk to the cops about the bag and where? Did she tell the cops or did they ask her? Some really interesting information about that afternoon in Frazier's HSCA tape. Nothing like the "official" story. Wonder if he will ever address that.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2021, 12:01:47 PM
Maybe ask why Buell needed to hide about 3 hours that afternoon. The bag was known about between 2 and 3pm. When did Linnie May talk to the cops about the bag and where? Did she tell the cops or did they ask her? Some really interesting information about that afternoon in Frazier's HSCA tape. Nothing like the "official" story. Wonder if he will ever address that.

Are you sure he was hiding and not just visiting his sick stepfather in hospital? And what 19 year old simple, unsophisticated kid wouldn't want to duck all that sudden, likely never-before-experienced-by-Buell publicity?

Can you provide a link to your 'nothing like the official story' please

----------------

UPDATE:
(Not from Colin)

Frazier Interview Full-HSCA - YouTube
2019-10-23 · You can follow the interview with this summary I made. The quality of the first 3 hours or so is poor. It improves greatly in the last hour. The cassettes at the National Archives are in a pitiful ...
Author: Denis Morissette

Cassette tape #4 Buell HSCA
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 07, 2021, 03:34:54 PM
Maybe ask why Buell needed to hide about 3 hours that afternoon. The bag was known about between 2 and 3pm. When did Linnie May talk to the cops about the bag and where? Did she tell the cops or did they ask her? Some really interesting information about that afternoon in Frazier's HSCA tape. Nothing like the "official" story. Wonder if he will ever address that.

Thanks for posting the link to Captain Fritz's notes that he never took......

Hmmmm??      Fritz swore under oath that he took no notes during the questioning of Lee Oswald..... 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 07, 2021, 03:38:02 PM
Maybe ask why Buell needed to hide about 3 hours that afternoon. The bag was known about between 2 and 3pm. When did Linnie May talk to the cops about the bag and where? Did she tell the cops or did they ask her? Some really interesting information about that afternoon in Frazier's HSCA tape. Nothing like the "official" story. Wonder if he will ever address that.
What evidence is there that he "needed to hide"? Did he leave the building shortly after the shooting? Did he try to avoid being interviewed by the police?

After the shooting he said he stayed at work and had his lunch. He didn't try to leave. He stayed until the police questioned the workers including him and then left when he was allowed to. That's odd behavior for someone supposedly who "needed to hide."





Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Colin Crow on March 08, 2021, 01:07:47 AM
What evidence is there that he "needed to hide"? Did he leave the building shortly after the shooting? Did he try to avoid being interviewed by the police?

After the shooting he said he stayed at work and had his lunch. He didn't try to leave. He stayed until the police questioned the workers including him and then left when he was allowed to. That's odd behavior for someone supposedly who "needed to hide."

What I meant was that he was hiding about three hours of time.....there is a missing 3 hour period that makes no sense in the official account.

If you look at the many relevant reports and documents it is obvious there are missing hours in his official story after he left the TSBD. I went through the Dennis Morrisette YouTube tape and took notes of interesting pieces of information.

Here is my summary.....it is some time since I made these and a few might have lost their significance on me today. Not that they weren’t but I would need to refresh myself with the documents.

Frazier Interview Full-HSCA

14.00 Told to take the rest of the day off, (maybe Shelley?) Coincidentally this is the same as Oswald's story.

‪14:20 Left for Irving and turned on Radio – heard JFK being worked on at Parkland. He must have left after the headcount and before the Senkel was told by Fritz to gather everyone up who was on 6th floor that day for questioning....maybe somewhere between 1.15 and 1.30? When was JFK pronounced dead on radio? Julia Postal heard on radio KLIF about time of Oswald's arrest. ‬

14:51 Went to sisters house and Mother was there – then went to hospital – Irving Professional Center –giving  step father oxygen (Oxygen was not in official story)
“Sister said, she was there” she had to go somewhere. I can give him oxygen.
Phone call – after oxygen – two detectives tried to grab him  - he ran to exit  – they said stop or shoot – frisk and shake down – Rose and Stovall – they thought it was strange he ran - took to Irving PS – then took to Dallas. Compare with Rose and Stovall reports went to Irving police station?

‪21:10 Fritz attempt at confession – thought Frazier was disrespectful to him‬

23:10 Police trying to whitewash – lax security procedures

24:00 Found out Oswald in custody – while he was Irving PD or about time he left for Dallas with Rose and Stovall?

25:21 Did not see LHO leave building – only found out was not there at head count – Shelley said he could go home between 1 and 1.30 – but Shelley goes to city hall with other 6th floor workers – must have been before request by Fritz to Senkel to round up sixth floor workers

26:30 did not notice police leave for Tippit shooting

27.00 knew Oswald was missing when he left building

27:20 got home and it was on TV – sister knew what had happened (TSBD) – we both said it was bad thing ------8 sec pause ----- “she said”……..I went to house and mother was there. Asked where sister was and she was at hospital. She had been there a while, he went to relieve her (LOL).

28:20 Didn’t know about Tippit at that time

29:20 Knew Oswald had been arrested

30:50 wondered if Oswald did it while driving –

31:10 Only thought of curtain rods when questioned – its been reported he had a package with him – what did it look like?

31:30 backed up into car port Thursday pm

32:30 cops went to my sisters house first – asked my mother  - he was up at hospital with sister

34:30 Frazier mentioned motorcade to Oswald on way to work

39:10 did not see Belknap ambulance, consistent with him coming out really late

41:30 was printed and photographed

52:00 Did they try to make you say something that want true? Did their questioning center around this packaging and curtain rods? They knew that he…..so they were very interested

1:00:20 Has never seen rifle

1:00:30 what time did you get to the hospital? Didn’t know. Went home shot time then to hospital. Thinks mother had news on TV and knew Tippit shot. At hospital remembers someone being arrested at Texas Theater. Did not now it was Oswald.

‪1:05:00 close to hitting him‬

1:06:40 made package together? “the one that we made”

1:08:30 knew Oswald was missing, only one... Bill did the count

‪1:09: when he knew Tippit was shot and Oswald arrested did he get scared? He was scared before, but had never been in trouble before. Was when at hospital with step father he thought Oswald was involved. Did anyone call to say it was Oswald (LMR?) Repeated did not know for sure at that time. Did not know it was Oswald at the hospital.‬

1:24:40 DPD searched the home – before or after they came to hospital –can’t remember

1:26:30 Was going to need lawyer until Rose and Stovall convinced cops he was telling truth

1:27:10 LMR and minister came to Irving PS

1:29:50 Can’t remember what mother/cops said before search....took his .303 and double gauge shotgun....mother not happy

1:30:10 No one tried to call him at hospital....reference to George O'Toole...assassination tapes

3:29:30 LMR at kitchen sink "says must be late because here comes Lee"

‪3:32:00 Conversation with Lee about battery charging – this is new‬

3:36:00 Parade close to lunch hour – he hadn’t eaten his lunch? Why not as lunch finished at 12.45!

3:39:30 one car garage?

3:40:10 Locked door to car? "He figured that one out!" "I guess he had"

PS there was a Richard Gilbride transcript of this going around that was somewhat inaccurate, probably due to the poor quality of the recording. The transcript had the following question "when did you know Oswald was framed........I believe framed was "named".....far less controversial.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Colin Crow on March 08, 2021, 01:58:15 AM
What evidence is there that he "needed to hide"? Did he leave the building shortly after the shooting? Did he try to avoid being interviewed by the police?

After the shooting he said he stayed at work and had his lunch. He didn't try to leave. He stayed until the police questioned the workers including him and then left when he was allowed to. That's odd behavior for someone supposedly who "needed to hide."

Frazier was obviously a person of interest given his association to Oswald. I am trying to show that the official story timeline is inconsistent. There are hours missing from Frazier leaving the TSBD and his apprehension at the Irving hospital. The police knew Frazier had given him the ride to work....likely by 2 or so. Fritz told Senkel to round up everyone who had been on the sixth floor that day and take them to HQ for questioning. This was around the time the rifle was found and Truly told Fritz about Oswald missing. Frazier was likely already gone as he would have been included in the sixth floor roundup.

Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on March 08, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Frazier would understandably want to distance himself from any suggestion that he was involved or should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work on the day the president was passing the building.  It would not have taken Nostradamus to find that somewhat suspicious.  Maybe worth mentioning to someone that morning.  So it does not defy imagination that he consulted with his much brighter sister to get his story straight after the fact when it began to dawn on him that he was in a precarious situation.  Both legally and from a public opinion perspective.

And so his story is that he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag that morning or discuss the President's visit (the top news story of the day) and they heard nothing about it on the radio.   Maybe the bag becomes shorter than it actually was etc.  Just a couple of good ole boys driving to work in silence.  How was he to know anything was afoot?  It's interesting that Frazier once said that he heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on the radio on this way to the hospital in connection with the assassin but claimed he wasn't sure it was the "Lee" he had driven to work because he didn't know his last name prior to the assassination.  I think Frazier was scared and played dumb.  Which wasn't difficult for him.  He probably felt guilty for his inadvertent role in the assassination.  He not only drove Oswald to work but is also indirectly responsible for him getting a job at the TSBD.  I'm sure he would rather be remembered as the person who drove the "alleged" assassin of JFK rather than the certain assassin.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2021, 09:03:00 PM
Frazier would understandably want to distance himself from any suggestion that he was involved or should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work on the day the president was passing the building.  It would not have taken Nostradamus to find that somewhat suspicious.  Maybe worth mentioning to someone that morning.  So it does not defy imagination that he consulted with his much brighter sister to get his story straight after the fact when it began to dawn on him that he was in a precarious situation.  Both legally and from a public opinion perspective.

And so his story is that he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag that morning or discuss the President's visit (the top news story of the day) and they heard nothing about it on the radio.   Maybe the bag becomes shorter than it actually was etc.  Just a couple of good ole boys driving to work in silence.  How was he to know anything was afoot?  It's interesting that Frazier once said that he heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on the radio on this way to the hospital in connection with the assassin but claimed he wasn't sure it was the "Lee" he had driven to work because he didn't know his last name prior to the assassination.  I think Frazier was scared and played dumb.  Which wasn't difficult for him.  He probably felt guilty for his inadvertent role in the assassination.  He not only drove Oswald to work but is also indirectly responsible for him getting a job at the TSBD.  I'm sure he would rather be remembered as the person who drove the "alleged" assassin of JFK rather than the certain assassin.

Nice bit of speculation. How long will it be before you start calling it a "fact"?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 09, 2021, 12:06:36 AM
Frazier was obviously a person of interest given his association to Oswald. I am trying to show that the official story timeline is inconsistent. There are hours missing from Frazier leaving the TSBD and his apprehension at the Irving hospital. The police knew Frazier had given him the ride to work....likely by 2 or so. Fritz told Senkel to round up everyone who had been on the sixth floor that day and take them to HQ for questioning. This was around the time the rifle was found and Truly told Fritz about Oswald missing. Frazier was likely already gone as he would have been included in the sixth floor roundup.

Assuming Frazier left the TSBD before the round-up of those who'd been on the 6th floor (say around 1:30 pm), it is safe to say he'd gone before the long bag was "discovered".

His sister, Linnie Mae, was telling Adamcik about Oswald's long bag around 5pm, just three and a half hours later.

Is this just some bizarre coincidence?
 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on March 09, 2021, 12:23:51 AM
Nice bit of speculation. How long will it be before you start calling it a "fact"?

That's right.  There are no "facts" in the contrarian world.  Only endless possibilities.  Maybe all the evidence was planted.  Maybe everyone lied.  Maybe Oswald was just a good ole boy shuffling from one disaster to another like Mr. Magoo.  Maybe.  It's possible.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Colin Crow on March 09, 2021, 12:25:00 AM
Assuming Frazier left the TSBD before the round-up of those who'd been on the 6th floor (say around 1:30 pm), it is safe to say he'd gone before the long bag was "discovered".

His sister, Linnie Mae, was telling Adamcik about Oswald's long bag around 5pm, just three and a half hours later.

Is this just some bizarre coincidence?

Dan, nail and head my friend. Who told who about a bag first?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2021, 12:30:27 AM
Frazier would understandably want to distance himself from any suggestion that he was involved or should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work on the day the president was passing the building.  It would not have taken Nostradamus to find that somewhat suspicious.  Maybe worth mentioning to someone that morning.  So it does not defy imagination that he consulted with his much brighter sister to get his story straight after the fact when it began to dawn on him that he was in a precarious situation.  Both legally and from a public opinion perspective.

And so his story is that he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag that morning or discuss the President's visit (the top news story of the day) and they heard nothing about it on the radio.   Maybe the bag becomes shorter than it actually was etc.  Just a couple of good ole boys driving to work in silence.  How was he to know anything was afoot?  It's interesting that Frazier once said that he heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on the radio on this way to the hospital in connection with the assassin but claimed he wasn't sure it was the "Lee" he had driven to work because he didn't know his last name prior to the assassination.  I think Frazier was scared and played dumb.  Which wasn't difficult for him.  He probably felt guilty for his inadvertent role in the assassination.  He not only drove Oswald to work but is also indirectly responsible for him getting a job at the TSBD.  I'm sure he would rather be remembered as the person who drove the "alleged" assassin of JFK rather than the certain assassin.

Frazier would understandably want to distance himself from any suggestion that he was involved or should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work on the day the president was passing the building.  It would not have taken Nostradamus to find that somewhat suspicious. 

 :D :D :D...   Good one, Mr "Smith".......   Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 09, 2021, 01:16:19 AM
That's right.  There are no "facts" in the contrarian world.  Only endless possibilities.  Maybe all the evidence was planted.  Maybe everyone lied.  Maybe Oswald was just a good ole boy shuffling from one disaster to another like Mr. Magoo.  Maybe.  It's possible.

What is also possible is that you consider all your speculation, assumptions and whatever other nonsense you believe to be a "fact" and call anybody who does not agree with you a contrarian.

Just because you say so.... HAHAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on March 09, 2021, 01:38:47 AM
Frazier would understandably want to distance himself from any suggestion that he was involved or should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work on the day the president was passing the building.  It would not have taken Nostradamus to find that somewhat suspicious. 

 :D :D :D...   Good one, Mr "Smith".......   Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

You don't believe Frazier would want to distance himself from the assassination of the President but would want to be implicated in that crime?  Do tell. 
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 09, 2021, 02:06:52 AM
Oswald was shoving it their faces, I heard... saying stuff like 'you figure it out', wasn't he? That could be expected whether he was innocent or not, though.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Colin Crow on March 09, 2021, 02:12:28 AM
You don't believe Frazier would want to distance himself from the assassination of the President but would want to be implicated in that crime?  Do tell.

The HSCA tape reveals what one would expect. He did not go to the hospital first. He went home. Likely his sister was at the hospital and he went there to work out what to do given his predicament. Did the cops go to the Randle's looking for him and talk to the mother? We have known for some time his story about the hospital visit was baloney. If his version was correct how did LMR know he was there to tell the cops. There was obvious interaction between the family members prior to his arrest at the hospital. There was interaction between family members and police as well.
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2021, 03:15:38 AM
You don't believe Frazier would want to distance himself from the assassination of the President but would want to be implicated in that crime?  Do tell.

Oh, no, no.... Mr "Smith"....  Here's the line that's so utterly ridiculous, that it's real "knee Slapper.....

18 year old, Buell Frazier " should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work ".....   Now THAT'S a real hoot Mr "Smith".
Title: Re: Then went inside with the curtain rods
Post by: Richard Smith on March 09, 2021, 02:08:49 PM
Oh, no, no.... Mr "Smith"....  Here's the line that's so utterly ridiculous, that it's real "knee Slapper.....

18 year old, Buell Frazier " should have exercised better awareness based upon Oswald's varying from his normal visit schedule and carrying a long, narrow bag to work ".....   Now THAT'S a real hoot Mr "Smith".

Yes, nothing to see that morning.  Just a guy carrying a three foot long bag shaped like a rifle on the morning that the President was going to drive by his building in an open car.  After making an unusual trip t