JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.....
-
The way I see it:, ....John Howlett ( a known conspirator,) had taken curtain rods from (WHERE??)
Gee, that's a tough one!
-
Gee, that's a tough one!
So you admit that you don't know WHERE Howlett got the curtain rods......
-
So you admit that you don't know WHERE Howlett got the curtain rods......
~Sigh~
Texas School Book Depository building
-
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.
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.
-
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?
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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, 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.
Where does it say the curtain rods were picked up on March 23?
Read Ms Ruth Paine's WC testimony at her home!
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.
And if it does mean what you say,
No, it means what it says: "submitted"----------your creative semantics here are a lost cause
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Strawman "Smith" doesn't explain things. He laughs maniacally and mutters incoherent rambles to himself.
And then runs away. Every time.
-
And then runs away. Every time.
HA HA HA.
-
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!'
-
HA HA HA.
So you can't explain the information and dates on the document? Got it, Mr Smith. Another triumph for you! Thumb1:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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....
-
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.
-
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....
-
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!
-
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:
-
(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:
-
(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!!
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
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.
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!
(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?
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.
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)
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
And so Mr Smith folds.
Anyone else want to try explaining the document?
Didn't I just give a possible explanation?
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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? "
-
"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.....
-
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
-
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:
-
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 ??
-
So you believe that Lee Was in fact transporting curtain rods in that paper bag?
Of course he was
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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"
-
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
-
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!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.)
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
Trump turned the White House into the spombleprofglidnoctobunse House, and will eventually wind up in the Big House.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thumb1:
Don't forget his GOP co-conspirators in Congress.
They're still armed.. these fck'n Americans and their guns
-
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
-
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.
-
Frazier saw Oswald go into the TSBD carrying his long package.
Well, a longish package... ~27 inches (sorry!)
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:
-
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
-
Dougherty was mental
Except when you need him to be the one who took down the elevator from the fifth floor
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Funny how Dougherty seems to be the only person that Bill Shelley ever told this story to...
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
Well given Fritz's apparent propensity to threaten people he was interrogating, I'm sure the lack of recording was deliberate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
::)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Have you tested what I'm suggesting?
Must have missed you suggestion. What was it?
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/7a/KVyz1V3h_o.jpg)
VERSUS
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f8/60/vWa0fiSQ_o.jpg)
:D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not-to-mention that poor little angel Oswald was the only person on Planet Earth who was on scene & accounted for during both murders.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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!
-
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:
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.
Yer FOS Chappie....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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:
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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
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
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
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?
-
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)
-
(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.
-
(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.....
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
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!
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!)
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.
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.
-
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
-
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"'
-
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?
-
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...
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?
-
::)
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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!
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)?
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Here's a clearer image of that doc
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwmch8Kw/1-XKx5dd-K-o-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/RWJb1rSk)
-
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?
-
Thumb1:
It's weird to see you making such sense. ;)
I have my moments, Mr O'Meara ;)
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').
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oswald's rifle is also found on that floor
LOL
with the same serial number as the one sent to his PO box by Klein's,
LOL
he knocks off early for a movie, decides to get his pistol
LOL
, 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
and he decides to sneak into a movie instead of buying a ticke,
LOL
and instead of waiting to see what the police want he decides to punch them
LOL
and then he has the same two brands of ammo
LOL
as used at the Tippit scene.
LOL
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.
-
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.
-
What a bizarre and kooky response.
Speaking of bizarre and kooky responses...
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?
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".
his wife confirms he owns a rifle,
So?
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?
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.
HA HA HA.
Indeed.
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
>>> 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".
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"?
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"?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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"
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
Name a few wild claims
Here's another one:
Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
-
Yet another one:
Several people from both murder scenes can confirm the truth of the matter for you.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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)
-
Here's another one:
Eyes on
-
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.
-
When he's breaking personal confidences re. deceased spouses
When I take note of an Oswald-lover kneeling at Oswald's grave
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
-
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?
-
: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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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:
-
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!
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
'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.
-
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.
-
When I take note of an Oswald-lover kneeling at Oswald's grave
Says the guy who visited his father's grave.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
his rifle was found on the 6th floor.
"His rifle". LOL.
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.
This is not Sherlock Holmes material.
No, it's the "Richard Smith" speculation bus.
-
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.
Why would he lie to the police about having curtain rods?
Is that supposed to somehow be evidence of murder?
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?
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.
-
In fact, Oswald lies about his ownership of the rifle even though it is linked to him via a serial number.
LOL
-
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?
-
"Speeding Oswald". Another wild claim. The hits keep on coming.
Wild only to Oswald-lovers
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
You're mistaking "speculation" for "investigation".
You mistake your opinion for fact
-
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"?
-
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
-
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".
-
You mistake your opinion for fact
No, I am quite clear on the difference. You...not so much.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
I rest my case
You have a case?
-
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.
-
'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.
-
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. 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...
-
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)
-
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?
-
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.
-
This latest exercise in "clever" sarcasm is just as irrelevant as all of your other lame attempts.
Boo-hoo
-
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.
-
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!
-
You have a case?
Do you have a life, Mr Always Logged In?
-
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"
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Your opinions are not proof of anything, Mr Barrister-Wannabe.
Never said they were. Got any more nonsense in store?
-
Never said they were. Got any more nonsense in store?
No need. You lot have that market cornered.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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"?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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! ???
-
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..
-
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
-
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".
-
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:
-
@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.
-
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?
-
@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 ?
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
I must stop multi-tasking. Neither can be given 100% concentration.
I hear you! Thumb1:
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?
-
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?
'
-
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"!!!
-
"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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
What's too bad for me? My point has been made perfectly clear.
You don't make points. Never have and never will...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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...
-
Those are opinions, not points...
Stop squirming
-
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?
-
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!
-
Stop squirming
Stop being so desperate for attention.
-
: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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
Stop being so desperate for attention.
Stop pretending that this forum is a court of law.
-
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.
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
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.
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.
-
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.
-
In the form of good-natured insights. Clever, cut-to-the-quick insights I might add.
Wow, your delusions know no end.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD.
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
That means it got there.
Brilliant.
Oswald worked in that building.
Also brilliant.
Oswald had access to the rifle.
Bzzzt. Assumes facts not in evidence.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
-
Wow, your delusions know no end.
Says the Oswald grave-kneeler
Talk about delusions
-
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?
-
Says the Oswald grave-kneeler
Says the guy who visits his father's grave.
-
Bzzzt
LOL
Chapman thinking he produces "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
LOL
-
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)
-
Chapman thinking he produces "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
LOL
You cut out the part that's clever and cuts to the quick
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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
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).
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
------------
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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".
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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....
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
'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?
-
'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.
-
'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
-
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
-
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.
-
You're still not clever
But you are, right? :D
-
But you are, right? :D
Being "clever" is important to our little Chappie.... It's an ego thing.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
But you are, right? :D
If you say so.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?'
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?
-
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.
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.
--------------------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.
--------------------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.
--------------------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)!
--------------------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.
-
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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
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...')
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 !!!!!
-
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?
-
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+
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
-
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)
-
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?
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.
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!
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.
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"?
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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?
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.
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
"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.
-
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.
Why so?
Why so what?
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.
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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!
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.
-
And yet these two different sets of curtain rods both come attached with the numbers 275 & 276. Ain't that a thing!
Indeed.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
You were wise not to------------they make a nonsense of your already nonsensical scenario
I believe most readers think that your scenario is nonsense......
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
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?
-
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".
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...........
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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....
-
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...
-
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!
-
Good grief!
What kind of a name is that? ::)
-
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
-
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.
-
It's 'copy/paste' in the digital age, cowboy.
Thanks for yet another "clever, cut-to-the-quick insight". ::)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
Correction to my earlier post. That’s Arnold Rowland :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In CT Wonderland, the JFK Assassination Forum is a court of law.
-
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??
-
And ever deeper goes the CTer rabbit hole bottomless pit of desperation.
You people.
::)
-
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
-
'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.
-
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
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.....
-
(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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In CT Wonderland, the JFK Assassination Forum is a court of law.
In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.
-
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.
-
'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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
In Chapman-delusion-land, it's his own personal clown-fest.
Order in the court!
Order in the court!
Speak, monkey, speak!
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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?
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?
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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...
-
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.
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.
-
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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......
-
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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
“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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So many rabbit holes. There are no "assumptions" here.
Who are you trying to kid? It nothing but one giant assumption.
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.
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.
Who did this rifle belong too? Oswald.
LOL.
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.
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.
-
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
-
hahahaha
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work
Andrew's sarcasm has gone completely over your head, hasn't it?
-
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 .......
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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 ...
-
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?
-
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?
-
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!
-
So what?
You asked. I schooled you.
That's 'so what', cowboy.
-
You asked. I schooled you.
That's 'so what', cowboy.
Lost for words = back to insults?
Pathetic
-
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!
-
Lost for words = back to insults?
Pathetic
What insult
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
The rationale is abundantly obvious
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f84770bdc363141e28211a5a8073a63d/tenor.gif)
You are such an utter waste of bandwidth.
And oxygen.
-
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..
-
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)
;)
-
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..............
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.....
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 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"?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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 the night before. Frazier had grounds to be concerned that public opinion might blame him for not being more vigilant with what was going on that morning. So his story is just a couple of good ole boys driving along in silence barely noticing each other.
-
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 the night before. Frazier had grounds to be concerned that public opinion might blame him for not being more vigilant with what was going on that morning. So his story is just a couple of good ole boys driving along in silence barely noticing each other.
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.
THREE Foot?? ..... Frazier said it was abut TWO feet give or take a couple of inches.
"Shaped like a rifle"?? Your imagination is running wild Mr "Smith" .... Neither Frazier nor his sister Linnie Mae, said that the flimsy light weight paper sack was shaped like a rifle. .
You really should stop making this stuff up Mr Smith, It makes you appear to be even more obtuse.
-
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.
THREE Foot?? ..... Frazier said it was abut TWO feet give or take a couple of inches.
"Shaped like a rifle"?? Your imagination is running wild Mr "Smith" .... Neither Frazier nor his sister Linnie Mae, said that the flimsy light weight paper sack was shaped like a rifle. .
You really should stop making this stuff up Mr Smith, It makes you appear to be even more obtuse.
What was the bag shaped like? Oswald said it contained curtain rods. What are curtain rods shaped like? So long and narrow. Just like a rifle. Even at over two feet as Frazier estimated it is a very strange looking bag to be carrying. I'm not saying Frazier should have known that the bag contained a rifle, but he had some grounds to be suspicious.
-
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 the night before. Frazier had grounds to be concerned that public opinion might blame him for not being more vigilant with what was going on that morning. So his story is just a couple of good ole boys driving along in silence barely noticing each other.
Monday-morning quarterback syndrome. Easy to say what Buell should have done, after the fact. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Oswald lucked out in being around warehouse workers (especially a none-too-bright Buell Frazier and a mental JackD), not people trained to watch for suspicious activities like someone carrying a long narrow package (in a way so as to minimize its profile, IMO) on the day that Kennedy would be driven around, wide-open to all comers... eventually going from sitting duck to dead duck in short order.
-
Monday-morning quarterback syndrome. Easy to say what Buell should have done, after the fact. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Oswald lucked out being around warehouse workers (especially a lollygagging, none-too-bright Buell Frazier), not people trained to watch for suspicious activities like carrying a long narrow package (in a way so as to minimize its profile, IMO) on the day that Kennedy would be driven around, wide-open to all comers; eventually going from sitting duck to dead duck in short order.
I'm not saying Frazier should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that after the fact Frazier would have legitimate grounds to be concerned with potential criticism that he should have been suspicious about Oswald's activities. Thus, his story becomes that he didn't pay much attention to the long bag, didn't discuss the presidential visit with Oswald on the drive to work even though it was the top news story of the day and Frazier was obviously interested given his presence on the street, his estimate of the bag's length might also be influenced by a desire to minimize the possibility that he should have known that it contained a rifle - so it becomes shorter than it actually was. The point being that Frazier's interests after the fact lie in the direction of minimizing the possibility that he should have known something was up. Maybe he was dumb as a brick and they didn't discuss the JFK visit etc. But if they had, I doubt Frazier would be forthcoming about it.
-
I'm not saying Frazier should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that after the fact Frazier would have legitimate grounds to be concerned with potential criticism that he should have been suspicious about Oswald's activities. Thus, his story becomes that he didn't pay much attention to the long bag, didn't discuss the presidential visit with Oswald on the drive to work even though it was the top news story of the day and Frazier was obviously interested given his presence on the street, his estimate of the bag's length might also be influenced by a desire to minimize the possibility that he should have known that it contained a rifle - so it becomes shorter than it actually was. The point being that Frazier's interests after the fact lie in the direction of minimizing the possibility that he should have known something was up. Maybe he was dumb as a brick and they didn't discuss the JFK visit etc. But if they had, I doubt Frazier would be forthcoming about it.
So, you're basically just accusing Frazier of obstruction of the investigation by obfuscating the facts as well as outright lying and then continuing to lie for the rest of his life... Got it.
You wouldn't just be speculating to fit the "facts" into your preferred narrative, would you now?
Wait, I just realized who I am talking to.... forget I asked!
-
I'm not saying Frazier should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that after the fact Frazier would have legitimate grounds to be concerned with potential criticism that he should have been suspicious about Oswald's activities. Thus, his story becomes that he didn't pay much attention to the long bag, didn't discuss the presidential visit with Oswald on the drive to work even though it was the top news story of the day and Frazier was obviously interested given his presence on the street, his estimate of the bag's length might also be influenced by a desire to minimize the possibility that he should have known that it contained a rifle - so it becomes shorter than it actually was. The point being that Frazier's interests after the fact lie in the direction of minimizing the possibility that he should have known something was up. Maybe he was dumb as a brick and they didn't discuss the JFK visit etc. But if they had, I doubt Frazier would be forthcoming about it.
I've been on board with most of that for years.
Maybe he was dumb as a brick
Or a doorknob... or a bag of hammers
Or as thick as a brick... or a plank
But I'm not really into clichés
They're just not my cup of tea
-
So, you're basically just accusing Frazier of obstruction of the investigation by obfuscating the facts as well as outright lying and then continuing to lie for the rest of his life... Got it.
You wouldn't just be speculating to fit the "facts" into your preferred narrative, would you now?
Wait, I just realized who I am talking to.... forget I asked!
That's rich considering the source. Let me guess. You have never suggested that a witness lied or were "coached" or "coerced" in the JFK case. Folks like Marina always told the truth right? The hypocrisy abounds. There is hardly a witness in this case that you haven't implied lied about the evidence against Oswald. But suddenly you take issue with the fact that Frazier might want to distance himself from the assassination by being vague on some details. LOL.
-
That's rich considering the source. Let me guess. You have never suggested that a witness lied or were "coached" or "coerced" in the JFK case. Folks like Marina always told the truth right? The hypocrisy abounds. There is hardly a witness in this case that you haven't implied lied about the evidence against Oswald. But suddenly you take issue with the fact that Frazier might want to distance himself from the assassination by being vague on some details. LOL.
Folks like Marina always told the truth right?
That's a pretty stupid question given the fact that Marina herself has admitted that she didn't always tell the truth to the investigators.
There is hardly a witness in this case that you haven't implied lied about the evidence against Oswald.
Example please.... or just admit this is a baseless accusation
But suddenly you take issue with the fact that Frazier might want to distance himself from the assassination by being vague on some details.
I take issue with the fact that you are 100% speculating, based on no evidence whatsoever.
-
What was the bag shaped like? Oswald said it contained curtain rods. What are curtain rods shaped like? So long and narrow. Just like a rifle. Even at over two feet as Frazier estimated it is a very strange looking bag to be carrying. I'm not saying Frazier should have known that the bag contained a rifle, but he had some grounds to be suspicious.
but he had some grounds to be suspicious.
That's nothing but 20/20 hindsight.....Monday morning quarterbacking based on the tale that the DPD developed.
-
but he had some grounds to be suspicious.
That's nothing but 20/20 hindsight.....Monday morning quarterbacking based on the tale that the DPD developed.
No, no, no... For "Richard" all of it is "fact".
Best be careful, Walt, because not agreeing with "Richard" makes you a contrarian!
-
So, you're basically just accusing Frazier of obstruction of the investigation by obfuscating the facts as well as outright lying and then continuing to lie for the rest of his life... Got it.
You wouldn't just be speculating to fit the "facts" into your preferred narrative, would you now?
Wait, I just realized who I am talking to.... forget I asked!
"Alternative facts" is Richard's specialty.
-
Here we hear the lie.....Frazier claiming he did not go home after leaving the TSBD. Compare to his HSCA interview where he claimed more than once he went to his sister's home first.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2)
25 minute mark.
-
but he had some grounds to be suspicious.
That's nothing but 20/20 hindsight.....Monday morning quarterbacking based on the tale that the DPD developed.
Good grief. Again, it's not hindsight. You seem incapable of understanding. I'm not suggesting that Frazier should have known that Oswald was a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that morning. Can you understand that? What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious. So it's difficult to say how much of his testimony was influenced by a desire to downplay the events. This is an obvious point. It requires no hindsight whatsoever. It's all the more rich coming from kooks who have suggested that Frazier and his sister were in on the conspiracy and made up the long bag story to implicate Oswald.
-
Here we hear the lie.....Frazier claiming he did not go home after leaving the TSBD. Compare to his HSCA interview where he claimed more than once he went to his sister's home first.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2)
25 minute mark.
BWF says he leaves TSBD sometime after the roll call.
Drives to hospital and hears about JFK death on the way.
Arrives at hospital and is there about 15 mins before Rose and Stovall show up. 2:45pm at the latest.
He is adamant about these details as he is questioned quite thoroughly about them.
The problem is that the first anyone hears about BWF being at a hospital is about 5pm when Linnie Mae tells Adamcik.
After everyone returns to City Hall, Rose and Stovall testify that BWF located at a clinic in Irving and get in touch with detective McCabe (about 6pm) who collects BWF and takes him to Irving PD which is where Rose and Stovall collect him from.
BWF is not a very good witness. There's more holes in his story than there is story.
Whatever the case, there is no way BWF and LMR can cook up the long bag story as BWF has left TSBD before the long bag is discovered.
-
Good grief. Again, it's not hindsight. You seem incapable of understanding. I'm not suggesting that Frazier should have known that Oswald was a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that morning. Can you understand that? What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious. So it's difficult to say how much of his testimony was influenced by a desire to downplay the events. This is an obvious point. It requires no hindsight whatsoever. It's all the more rich coming from kooks who have suggested that Frazier and his sister were in on the conspiracy and made up the long bag story to implicate Oswald.
What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious.
That all depends on when exactly Frazier (and Randle also) learned that Oswald was the main suspect. I seriously doubt that he (they) knew this when he drove back to his sister in Irving and subsequently to the hospital. Frazier left the TSBD, at around 1:30 PM, before Oswald was even arrested! It is entirely possible that he did not find out about Oswald's arrest until after he was arrested at the hospital, which of course means that he couldn't have synchronized his story with his sister.
So it's difficult to say how much of his testimony was influenced by a desire to downplay the events. This is an obvious point.
Hardly obvious, as he couldn't have known, in those early hours, that the size of the paper bag Oswald had carried and the implications of that, would be such an issue, until the DPD officers asked him about it. That didn't happen until around midnight, when he was being polygraphed. It was at that time that he rejected the bag found at the TSBD as the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
It requires no hindsight whatsoever.
Oh yes it does. And revisionism as well.
-
What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious.
That all depends on when exactly Frazier learned that Oswald was the main suspect. I seriously doubt that he knew this when he drove back to his sister in Irving and subsequently to the hospital. Frazier left the TSBD before Oswald was even arrested! It is entirely possible that he did not find out about Oswald's arrest until after he was arrested at the hospital.
That's a bizarre response. Frazier's DPD interrogation and WC testimony obviously took place AFTER he realized that Oswald was a suspect. Once they haul him into the DPD he obviously knows that he is caught up in the assassination investigation via his connection to Oswald. What difference does it make what he thought before he knew Oswald was a suspect? It is obvious that Frazier would want to distance himself from any conclusion that he had a basis to suspect that Oswald was up to something that morning. So if his story is slanted then it is in the direction of downplaying anything suspicious about Oswald's behavior. It doesn't seem unreasonable, for example, that he might have discussed the top news story of the day with Oswald (i.e. JFK's visit to Dallas). Particularly since JFK's motorcade route went right by their building. Frazier seemed afire about JFK's visit later that morning since he mentioned in an interview that he approached Truly and asked for permission to go outside to watch it pass. But two good ole boys drove to work in silence.
-
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.
:D
Like you have anything more than "maybe" and "possibly".
-
Good grief. Again, it's not hindsight. You seem incapable of understanding. I'm not suggesting that Frazier should have known that Oswald was a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that morning. Can you understand that? What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious.
Suggest away, but don't pretend like your fanciful speculation means anything.
-
BWF says he leaves TSBD sometime after the roll call.
Drives to hospital and hears about JFK death on the way.
Arrives at hospital and is there about 15 mins before Rose and Stovall show up. 2:45pm at the latest.
He is adamant about these details as he is questioned quite thoroughly about them.
The problem is that the first anyone hears about BWF being at a hospital is about 5pm when Linnie Mae tells Adamcik.
After everyone returns to City Hall, Rose and Stovall testify that BWF located at a clinic in Irving and get in touch with detective McCabe (about 6pm) who collects BWF and takes him to Irving PD which is where Rose and Stovall collect him from.
BWF is not a very good witness. There's more holes in his story than there is story.
Whatever the case, there is no way BWF and LMR can cook up the long bag story as BWF has left TSBD before the long bag is discovered.
Dan, he also claimed in that interview with Gary Mack that he heard of Lee Oswald over the radio on the way to the hospital. The earliest Oswald's name was mentioned in the media was 2.42.
The cops (not sure who) obviously went to the Randle’s after Frazier and LMR left and spoke to the mother. I suspect Buell returned home around 2pm and LMR, mother and he watched TV (HSCA interview) and the moment Oswald's name was mentioned, brother and sister made a run for the hospital to work on a story.
Is it possible that the cops that visited the Randle home conveyed information about a package to the mother?
Something like did you see him that morning? Was he carrying a paper package?
There is also the possibility of the bag information being conveyed to the Paine's as there was two way communication between HQ and the house during the afternoon. Eg ask the wife and RP if he left with a package.....now cops at the scene are aware of the importance of a paper bag before LMR wanders over.
Mother then rings brother and sister at the hospital and tells them the police believe he had a package that morning.
Just something to consider why Frazier might have conveniently lost some hours and why LMR happened to stroll over to chat to Adamcik rather than cops not even bothering the Randle’s for 3 hours.
-
That's a bizarre response. Frazier's DPD interrogation and WC testimony obviously took place AFTER he realized that Oswald was a suspect. Once they haul him into the DPD he obviously knows that he is caught up in the assassination investigation via his connection to Oswald. What difference does it make what he thought before he knew Oswald was a suspect? It is obvious that Frazier would want to distance himself from any conclusion that he had a basis to suspect that Oswald was up to something that morning. So if his story is slanted then it is in the direction of downplaying anything suspicious about Oswald's behavior. It doesn't seem unreasonable, for example, that he might have discussed the top news story of the day with Oswald (i.e. JFK's visit to Dallas). Particularly since JFK's motorcade route went right by their building. Frazier seemed afire about JFK's visit later that morning since he mentioned in an interview that he approached Truly and asked for permission to go outside to watch it pass. But two good ole boys drove to work in silence.
Frazier's DPD interrogation and WC testimony obviously took place AFTER he realized that Oswald was a suspect.
Really? What's so obvious about it as far as his DPD interrogation goes?
Once they haul him into the DPD he obviously knows that he is caught up in the assassination investigation via his connection to Oswald. What difference does it make what he thought before he knew Oswald was a suspect?
Again, what's so obvious about it? When he was arrested, it could well have been for him not being present when they wanted to talk to all the people who had been on the 6th floor. Do you really think the investigators would just tell him it had something to do with Oswald? Are you that naive? In his HSCA interview, Frazier confirmed that the officers who arrested him did not tell him anything about Oswald and that he only found out Oswald had been arrested after they brought him back to DPD headquarters in Dallas.
It is obvious that Frazier would want to distance himself from any conclusion that he had a basis to suspect that Oswald was up to something that morning.
That's the third time you've used the word "obvious" when there is nothing obvious about it. Frazier did nothing wrong and wasn't aware of any potential legal problems until he was arrested at the hospital. As an innocent man all he needed to do was tell the investigators what happened, which basically is that he gave a co-worker a ride to work. There was no reason for him to concoct any kind of story and there was no opportunity or need for him to synchronize his story with his sister.
So if his story is slanted then it is in the direction of downplaying anything suspicious about Oswald's behavior.
If?
This is complete biased selfserving BS. You first assume that Frazier must have been suspicious about Oswald's trip to Irving, he then must have been suspicious about the package and finally he must have instantly understood that his involvement with Oswald could be a problem for the investigators. Then, and only then, would this so described "dumb ass" get to the point that he needed to make up some story, synchronize it with his sister, rather than just telling the truth. It is so far fetched that it is completely idiotic.
But two good ole boys drove to work in silence.
Oswald was known as the silent type. Not very talkative and keeping very much to himself. So what if they drove to work in silence? The fact that you can not imagine a drive by two people who do not talk is your problem.
-
What I am suggesting is that AFTER Frazier knew he had driven a nut job who was carrying a rifle to assassinate JFK that all his interests lay in making it appear that he had no cause to be suspicious.
That all depends on when exactly Frazier (and Randle also) learned that Oswald was the main suspect. I seriously doubt that he (they) knew this when he drove back to his sister in Irving and subsequently to the hospital. Frazier left the TSBD, at around 1:30 PM, before Oswald was even arrested! It is entirely possible that he did not find out about Oswald's arrest until after he was arrested at the hospital, which of course means that he couldn't have synchronized his story with his sister.
So it's difficult to say how much of his testimony was influenced by a desire to downplay the events. This is an obvious point.
Hardly obvious, as he couldn't have known, in those early hours, that the size of the paper bag Oswald had carried and the implications of that, would be such an issue, until the DPD officers asked him about it. That didn't happen until around midnight, when he was being polygraphed. It was at that time that he rejected the bag found at the TSBD as the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
It requires no hindsight whatsoever.
Oh yes it does. And revisionism as well.
That didn't happen until around midnight, when he was being polygraphed.
Anybody who knows anything about polygraphs knows that a polygraph cannot be conducted with the subject under duress.....
Polygraphed ??..... Those bastards merely went through the motions and tricked an ignorant kid into believing that he was on record ( The polygraph chart ) that he had seen the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald (BOOOOO HISSSSS) carrying a long brown paper bag that morning. Since the "polygraph" had recorded his admission, and the officers, had suggested that he couldn't be held as an accomplice because he didn't know the sack held a broken down rifle.
-
That didn't happen until around midnight, when he was being polygraphed.
Anybody who knows anything about polygraphs knows that a polygraph cannot be conducted with the subject under duress.....
Polygraphed ??..... Those bastards merely went through the motions and tricked an ignorant kid into believing that he was on record ( The polygraph chart ) that he had seen the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald (BOOOOO HISSSSS) carrying a long brown paper bag that morning. Since the "polygraph" had recorded his admission, and the officers, had suggested that he couldn't be held as an accomplice because he didn't know the sack held a broken down rifle.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, Walt, but Frazier was indeed polygraphed on Friday evening and they did show him the bag that was found at the TSBD. His denial that this was not the bag Oswald had carried caused a panic by Lt Day who instantly started to look for an explanation and even went so far as to suggest that Oswald had carried the TSBD bag inside a flimsy groceries bag.
-
That didn't happen until around midnight, when he was being polygraphed.
Anybody who knows anything about polygraphs knows that a polygraph cannot be conducted with the subject under duress.....
Polygraphed ??..... Those bastards merely went through the motions and tricked an ignorant kid into believing that he was on record ( The polygraph chart ) that he had seen the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald (BOOOOO HISSSSS) carrying a long brown paper bag that morning. Since the "polygraph" had recorded his admission, and the officers, had suggested that he couldn't be held as an accomplice because he didn't know the sack held a broken down rifle.
:D :D :D
Frazier passed a polygraph test. But you are making up your own stories as you go along.
-
Frazier's DPD interrogation and WC testimony obviously took place AFTER he realized that Oswald was a suspect.
Really? What's so obvious about it as far as his DPD interrogation goes?
Once they haul him into the DPD he obviously knows that he is caught up in the assassination investigation via his connection to Oswald. What difference does it make what he thought before he knew Oswald was a suspect?
Again, what's so obvious about it? When he was arrested, it could well have been for him not being present when they wanted to talk to all the people who had been on the 6th floor. Do you really think the investigators would just tell him it had something to do with Oswald? Are you that naive? In his HSCA interview, Frazier confirmed that the officers who arrested him did not tell him anything about Oswald and that he only found out Oswald had been arrested after they brought him back to DPD headquarters in Dallas.
It is obvious that Frazier would want to distance himself from any conclusion that he had a basis to suspect that Oswald was up to something that morning.
That's the third time you've used the word "obvious" when there is nothing obvious about it. Frazier did nothing wrong and wasn't aware of any potential legal problems until he was arrested at the hospital. As an innocent man all he needed to do was tell the investigators what happened, which basically is that he gave a co-worker a ride to work. There was no reason for him to concoct any kind of story and there was no opportunity or need for him to synchronize his story with his sister.
So if his story is slanted then it is in the direction of downplaying anything suspicious about Oswald's behavior.
If?
This is complete biased selfserving BS. You first assume that Frazier must have been suspicious about Oswald's trip to Irving, he then must have been suspicious about the package and finally he must have instantly understood that his involvement with Oswald could be a problem for the investigators. Then, and only then, would this so described "dumb ass" get to the point that he needed to make up some story, synchronize it with his sister, rather than just telling the truth. It is so far fetched that it is completely idiotic.
But two good ole boys drove to work in silence.
Oswald was known as the silent type. Not very talkative and keeping very much to himself. So what if they drove to work in silence? The fact that you can not imagine a drive by two people who do not talk is your problem.
You entertain every manner of outlandish, baseless counter possibility to any evidence that links Oswald to the assassination. But here you suddenly take long winded exception with an obvious point. That Frazier would want to distance himself from the implication that he knew or perhaps should have known that Oswald's behavior was suspicious that morning. That's "obvious" unless you believe that Frazier wanted to go to jail or be forever blamed by public opinion for not being more suspicious of Oswald's out of character behavior.
Again, I'm not saying that Frazier should have found his behavior suspicious only that there were grounds for Frazier to be concerned since he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the crime scene. And you don't believe Frazier had grounds to know that Oswald was the assassin by the time he was taken in and interviewed by the DPD! Hilarious. Oswald had been arrested by that point. Frazier indicated that he heard that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had been arrested in connection with the assassination on his car radio. Frazier may have been surprised that they wanted to talk to him again but there is no doubt that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Even if he didn't, he quickly would have become aware of that since that is what the DPD started asking him about. Good grief.
-
:D :D :D
Frazier passed a polygraph test. But you are making up your own stories as you go along.
Your ignorance is hangin out a country mile, Rick.... A polygraph test cannot be given to a subject who isn't calm and relaxed....
That's very easy to check....Check it out and perhaps then you won't appear to be so stupid.
-
You entertain every manner of outlandish, baseless counter possibility to any evidence that links Oswald to the assassination. But here you suddenly take long winded exception with an obvious point. That Frazier would want to distance himself from the implication that he knew or perhaps should have known that Oswald's behavior was suspicious that morning. That's "obvious" unless you believe that Frazier wanted to go to jail or be forever blamed by public opinion for not being more suspicious of Oswald's out of character behavior.
Again, I'm not saying that Frazier should have found his behavior suspicious only that there were grounds for Frazier to be concerned since he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the crime scene. And you don't believe Frazier had grounds to know that Oswald was the assassin by the time he was taken in and interviewed by the DPD! Hilarious. Oswald had been arrested by that point. Frazier indicated that he heard that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had been arrested in connection with the assassination on his car radio. Frazier may have been surprised that they wanted to talk to him again but there is no doubt that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Even if he didn't, he quickly would have become aware of that since that is what the DPD started asking him about. Good grief.
You entertain every manner of outlandish, baseless counter possibility to any evidence that links Oswald to the assassination.
No. Unlike you, I have an open mind and entertain every possibility, including the one where Oswald was the lone gunman. I just want to see conclusive evidence rather than your usual speculations and assumptions.
But here you suddenly take long winded exception with an obvious point.
Stop whining. If you have a case to make, present it, but don't give me a bunch of selfserving BS speculations.
That Frazier would want to distance himself from the implication that he knew or perhaps should have known that Oswald's behavior was suspicious that morning. That's "obvious" unless you believe that Frazier wanted to go to jail or be forever blamed by public opinion for not being more suspicious of Oswald's out of character behavior.
There is nothing obvious about it. Why would Frazier fear that he would go to jail or be blamed by anybody when all he did was drive a co-worker to work?
Again, I'm not saying that Frazier should have found his behavior suspicious only that there were grounds for Frazier to be concerned since he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the crime scene.
Complete BS. If you go down this rabbit hole, Ruth Paine should also be concerned because she allegedly stored and concealed the murder weapon in her garage.
And you don't believe Frazier had grounds to know that Oswald was the assassin by the time he was taken in and interviewed by the DPD! Hilarious.
What grounds? Frazier said in his HSCA interview that he only found out that Oswald had been arrested when the officers who detained him at the hospital brought him to DPD headquarters in Dallas. So, on what grounds would Frazier know that "Oswald was the assassin"? Just because he carried a paper bag that morning, which as far as Frazier knew contained curtain rods.... Yeah, that makes sense.... pfffffffff
Frazier indicated that he heard that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had been arrested in connection with the assassination on his car radio
Yes, but he also indicated that he did not know Lee's last name until after the assassination, and he did not put two and two together. With hindsight you may think that he should have put it together, but that's only your bias opinion.
Frazier may have been surprised that they wanted to talk to him again but there is no doubt that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
No doubt? In your mind probably... I don't believe for a second that Frazier knew that Oswald was a suspect, even after they brought him back to Dallas. All he knew at that moment was that Oswald had been arrested. He may well have thought it was for the same reason as they arrested him, for not being present when the police wanted to talk to all TSBD workers who had been on the 6th floor.
And what do you mean by "that they wanted to talk to him again"? DPD officers had not talked to Frazier at all prior to his arrest at the hospital!
Even if he didn't, he quickly would have become aware of that since that is what the DPD started asking him about.
This is probably true, but it means that Frazier had no way of synchronizing his story with his sister prior to being interviewed and polygraphed at DPD HQ on Friday evening, which of course blows your entire theory (that he went to Irving to get his story straight with his sister) out of the water!
Good grief.
Indeed
-
You entertain every manner of outlandish, baseless counter possibility to any evidence that links Oswald to the assassination. But here you suddenly take long winded exception with an obvious point.
When "Richard" speculates, it's "obvious". When somebody else speculates, it's "outlandish".
-
If Mr Frazier wanted to minimize the trouble he was in, he could have just said 'I didn't notice any package'.
His description of a ~27-inch package is most sensibly explained by the inference that he saw a ~27-inch package.
And the fact that two curtain rods were documented as having been submitted for fingerprint testing for Mr Oswald's prints 3/15/64 and released back 3/24/64 is most sensibly explained by the inference that two curtain rods were found in the Depository building after the assassination.
Thumb1:
-
If Mr Frazier wanted to minimize the trouble he was in, he could have just said 'I didn't notice any package'.
His description of a ~27-inch package is most sensibly explained by the inference that he saw a ~27-inch package.
And the fact that two curtain rods were documented as having been submitted for fingerprint testing for Mr Oswald's prints 3/15/64 and released back 3/24/64 is most sensibly explained by the inference that two curtain rods were found in the Depository building after the assassination.
Thumb1:
If Mr Frazier wanted to minimize the trouble he was in, he could have just said 'I didn't notice any package'.
But the Cops told him that Lee Oswald had said that the brown paper sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods. Buell was just a dumb kid and scared to death so he saw no danger in agreeing with "Lee's Story."..... But Lee had never said anything about curtain rods. But How was Buell to know ..... He believed the cops and he still does.
-
You entertain every manner of outlandish, baseless counter possibility to any evidence that links Oswald to the assassination.
No. Unlike you, I have an open mind and entertain every possibility, including the one where Oswald was the lone gunman. I just want to see conclusive evidence rather than your usual speculations and assumptions.
But here you suddenly take long winded exception with an obvious point.
Stop whining. If you have a case to make, present it, but don't give me a bunch of selfserving BS speculations.
That Frazier would want to distance himself from the implication that he knew or perhaps should have known that Oswald's behavior was suspicious that morning. That's "obvious" unless you believe that Frazier wanted to go to jail or be forever blamed by public opinion for not being more suspicious of Oswald's out of character behavior.
There is nothing obvious about it. Why would Frazier fear that he would go to jail or be blamed by anybody when all he did was drive a co-worker to work?
Again, I'm not saying that Frazier should have found his behavior suspicious only that there were grounds for Frazier to be concerned since he had driven the assassin and his weapon to the crime scene.
Complete BS. If you go down this rabbit hole, Ruth Paine should also be concerned because she allegedly stored and concealed the murder weapon in her garage.
And you don't believe Frazier had grounds to know that Oswald was the assassin by the time he was taken in and interviewed by the DPD! Hilarious.
What grounds? Frazier said in his HSCA interview that he only found out that Oswald had been arrested when the officers who detained him at the hospital brought him to DPD headquarters in Dallas. So, on what grounds would Frazier know that "Oswald was the assassin"? Just because he carried a paper bag that morning, which as far as Frazier knew contained curtain rods.... Yeah, that makes sense.... pfffffffff
Frazier indicated that he heard that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had been arrested in connection with the assassination on his car radio
Yes, but he also indicated that he did not know Lee's last name until after the assassination, and he did not put two and two together. With hindsight you may think that he should have put it together, but that's only your bias opinion.
Frazier may have been surprised that they wanted to talk to him again but there is no doubt that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
No doubt? In your mind probably... I don't believe for a second that Frazier knew that Oswald was a suspect, even after they brought him back to Dallas. All he knew at that moment was that Oswald had been arrested. He may well have thought it was for the same reason as they arrested him, for not being present when the police wanted to talk to all TSBD workers who had been on the 6th floor.
And what do you mean by "that they wanted to talk to him again"? DPD officers had not talked to Frazier at all prior to his arrest at the hospital!
Even if he didn't, he quickly would have become aware of that since that is what the DPD started asking him about.
This is probably true, but it means that Frazier had no way of synchronizing his story with his sister prior to being interviewed and polygraphed at DPD HQ on Friday evening, which of course blows your entire theory (that he went to Irving to get his story straight with his sister) out of the water!
Good grief.
Indeed
So many words. You suggest Frazier was "arrested" and then argue he had no cause to be concerned about being connected to Oswald. Comedy gold. LOL.
-
So many words. You suggest Frazier was "arrested" and then argue he had no cause to be concerned about being connected to Oswald. Comedy gold. LOL.
There is just one answer for this: You are a complete idiot!
After the line up, from which Oswald was missing, the TSBD staff was dismissed by Shelley. Shortly after that the DPD officers wanted to talk to all the employees who had been on the 6th floor that day. By that time Frazier had left. That's why he was detained at the hospital. It had nothing to do with his connection with Oswald. It wasn't until they brought Frazier to DPD headquarters in Dallas that they started to focus on the paper bag and Oswald.
Btw Fritz wasn't looking for Oswald as a suspect in the murder of JFK either. He wanted him found because he wasn't present at the line up. Oswald was initially arrested as a suspect in Tippit's murder and only after he arrived at the DPD HQ did they realize that the man Fritz wanted to talk to was already in custody.
So many words.
That's just your standard reply for when you have no arguments left to make your case. Whenever you use that pathetic comment it signals the moment when you start running.....
-
There is just one answer for this: You are a complete idiot!
After the line up, from which Oswald was missing, the TSBD staff was dismissed by Shelley. Shortly after that the DPD officers wanted to talk to all the employees who had been on the 6th floor that day. By that time Frazier had left. That's why he was detained at the hospital. It had nothing to do with his connection with Oswald. It wasn't until they brought Frazier to DPD headquarters in Dallas that they started to focus on the paper bag and Oswald.
Btw Fritz wasn't looking for Oswald as a suspect in the murder of JFK either. He wanted him found because he wasn't present at the line up. Oswald was initially arrested as a suspect in Tippit's murder and only after he arrived at the DPD HQ did they realize that the man Fritz wanted to talk to was already in custody.
So many words.
That's just your standard reply for when you have no arguments left to make your case. Whenever you use that pathetic comment it signals the moment when you start running.....
Totally false. Frazier indicated that he was present at the line up. And I thought you nuts didn't believe there even was a line up. Frazier even ate his lunch in the building before leaving. Get your story straight and get back to us.
Mr. BALL - You stayed there on the job until you were told to go home?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time did they tell you to go home?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was between 1 and 2 there sometime, roughly, I don't know what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.
-
Your ignorance is hangin out a country mile, Rick.... A polygraph test cannot be given to a subject who isn't calm and relaxed....
That's very easy to check....Check it out and perhaps then you won't appear to be so stupid.
Walt always makes up his own assumptions and his own "evidence" to support his phony claim.
-
If Mr Frazier wanted to minimize the trouble he was in, he could have just said 'I didn't notice any package'.
But the Cops told him that Lee Oswald had said that the brown paper sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods.
Did you hear this conversation in a mystical vision, Mr Cakebread?
-
Totally false. Frazier indicated that he was present at the line up. And I thought you nuts didn't believe there even was a line up. Frazier even ate his lunch in the building before leaving. Get your story straight and get back to us.
Mr. BALL - You stayed there on the job until you were told to go home?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time did they tell you to go home?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was between 1 and 2 there sometime, roughly, I don't know what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.
Frazier indicated that he was present at the line up.
Learn to understand what you are reading, fool. Yes, Frazier was present at the initial line up, but after that he left and then DPD officers decided they wanted to talk to all the employees that had been on the 6th floor that day, which included Frazier. That was the second line up! Because he was no longer at the TSBD, and thus not present at the second line up, officers went to his known address in Irving to pick him up.
Get your story straight and get back to us.
Says the idiot who doesn't even know what the actual story is.
-
Frazier indicated that he was present at the line up.
Learn to understand what you are reading, fool. Yes, Frazier was present at the initial line up, but after that he left and then DPD officers decided they wanted to talk to all the employees that had been on the 6th floor that day, which included Frazier. That was the second line up! Because he was no longer at the TSBD, and thus not present at the second line up, officers went to his known address in Irving to pick him up.
Get your story straight and get back to us.
Says the idiot who doesn't even know what the actual story is.
Frazier left the TSBD and went home around 1.30. On the way he heard of JFK death on the car radio. He did not go immediately to the Irving hospital. He likely got home around 2pm. It seems likely LMR and his mother were watching assassination coverage according to his HSCA interview. Oswald was first mentioned in the media around 2.40. At that time there were already 6 cops at the Paine's just a few houses away. I suggest that Frazier and his sister "disappeared" for some time to work on a story that would minimise any trouble for him.
According to his HSCA interview at sometime after they left the cops visited his mother at the house and spoke with her.
Anyone want to object to that scenario?
-
Frazier indicated that he was present at the line up.
Learn to understand what you are reading, fool. Yes, Frazier was present at the initial line up, but after that he left and then DPD officers decided they wanted to talk to all the employees that had been on the 6th floor that day, which included Frazier. That was the second line up! Because he was no longer at the TSBD, and thus not present at the second line up, officers went to his known address in Irving to pick him up.
Get your story straight and get back to us.
Says the idiot who doesn't even know what the actual story is.
Imbecile. You suggested Frazier was "arrested' because he left the TSBD and that he had no basis to realize when he was taken in by the DPD that it was related to Oswald. That is a complete and total falsehood. He was given permission to leave. The DPD wanted to talk with him further because they learned he had driven Oswald to work that morning. By that point Frazier knew that they wanted to talk with him because of his association with Oswald. Again, he had talked with the DPD and been given permission to leave work. His not being at the TSBD was not the reason the DPD wanted to talk with him. It was his association with Oswald. Frazier knew that. He heard on his car radio that Oswald had been taken into custody. The DPD did not track down every TSBD employee who left after they had been given permission.
-
Imbecile. You suggested Frazier was "arrested' because he left the TSBD and that he had no basis to realize when he was taken in by the DPD that it was related to Oswald. That is a complete and total falsehood. He was given permission to leave. The DPD wanted to talk with him further because they learned he had driven Oswald to work that morning. By that point Frazier knew that they wanted to talk with him because of his association with Oswald. Again, he had talked with the DPD and been given permission to leave work. His not being at the TSBD was not the reason the DPD wanted to talk with him. It was his association with Oswald. Frazier knew that. He heard on his car radio that Oswald had been taken into custody. The DPD did not track down every TSBD employee who left after they had been given permission.
You suggested Frazier was "arrested' because he left the TSBD and that he had no basis to realize when he was taken in by the DPD that it was related to Oswald.
Indeed
He was given permission to leave.
I never said otherwise
The DPD wanted to talk with him further because they learned he had driven Oswald to work that morning.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Or is it just another one of your ''obvious facts''?
You do know that Oswald was arrested for Tippit's murder and not JFK's, right? Only after he was brought into the station did they discover that they already had the man in custody who Fritz wanted to talk to because he was missing at the first TSBD line up. Oswald was not charged with JFK's murder until shortly before the midnight "press conference".
Yet here you are claiming that Frazier, shortly after leaving the TSBD at 1:30 PM, should have known that DPD officers wanted to talk to him in connection with Oswald.
By that point Frazier knew that they wanted to talk with him because of his association with Oswald.
Prove it.
Again, he had talked with the DPD and been given permission to leave work.
BS, during the initial line up all the workers gave their personal details to the officers and nothing else. They did not interview anybody. If they had done, the workers wouldn't have been able to leave so quickly. Frazier left the building at around 1:30 PM
His not being at the TSBD was not the reason the DPD wanted to talk with him. It was his association with Oswald.
So you keep claiming, but you haven't go a shred of evidence for it. But then, what else is new for you?
He heard on his car radio that Oswald had been taken into custody.
Indeed, but that was for the murder of Tippit, not JFK and Frazier told the HSCA that he only know Oswald's first name at that time, so he had no way of connecting the dots and in fact didn't!
The DPD did not track down every TSBD employee who left after they had been given permission.
Indeed, only those who had been on the 6th floor and most of them were still in the building. Frazier wasn't.
-
His not being at the TSBD was not the reason the DPD wanted to talk with him. It was his association with Oswald.
So you keep claiming, but you haven't go a shred of evidence for it. But then, what else is new for you?
The DPD did not track down every TSBD employee who left after they had been given permission.
Indeed, only those who had been on the 6th floor and most of them were still in the building. Frazier wasn't.
Frazier was not "arrested" until after 6PM. Four hours after Oswald is taken into custody. Frazier is not interrogated until after 9PM. Frazier was a person of interest due to his association with Oswald. He certainly knew by the time he was questioned by the DPD that Oswald was a suspect. He even heard it on the radio. The DPD wanted to talk with him that night for that reason. He knew that. He knew when he answered those questions that he was in potential trouble. Frazier is the Ned Spangler of the JFK assassination. He had good cause to be concerned that the police or public would attempt to hold him accountable based on what he had knew prior to the assassination. So his answers are potentially skewed with an obvious desire to distance himself from any reason to be suspicious of Oswald's behavior. As a result, he wasn't paying much attention that morning, no talk, just driving in silence.
-
Imbecile. You suggested Frazier was "arrested' because he left the TSBD and that he had no basis to realize when he was taken in by the DPD that it was related to Oswald. That is a complete and total falsehood. He was given permission to leave. The DPD wanted to talk with him further because they learned he had driven Oswald to work that morning. By that point Frazier knew that they wanted to talk with him because of his association with Oswald. Again, he had talked with the DPD and been given permission to leave work. His not being at the TSBD was not the reason the DPD wanted to talk with him. It was his association with Oswald. Frazier knew that. He heard on his car radio that Oswald had been taken into custody. The DPD did not track down every TSBD employee who left after they had been given permission.
Lee was arrested at about 1:50.....When was the name Oswald first broadcast ? I doubt that Frazier heard Lee's name as a suspect on his car radio.
-
Frazier was not "arrested" until after 6PM. Four hours after Oswald is taken into custody. Frazier is not interrogated until after 9PM. Frazier was a person of interest due to his association with Oswald. He certainly knew by the time he was questioned by the DPD that Oswald was a suspect. He even heard it on the radio. The DPD wanted to talk with him that night for that reason. He knew that. He knew when he answered those questions that he was in potential trouble. Frazier is the Ned Spangler of the JFK assassination. He had good cause to be concerned that the police or public would attempt to hold him accountable based on what he had knew prior to the assassination. So his answers are potentially skewed with an obvious desire to distance himself from any reason to be suspicious of Oswald's behavior. As a result, he wasn't paying much attention that morning, no talk, just driving in silence.
Again, a lot of words but not a shred of evidence for this BS
Frazier was not "arrested" until after 6PM. Four hours after Oswald is taken into custody.
Again, Oswald was arrested for the Tippit murder and Frazier only knew his first name. During the time between leaving the TSBD at 1:30 PM and his detention at the hospital at 6 PM his only source of information was his car radio, which had only told him that somebody named Oswald had been arrested. At that time Frazier did not know Lee's surname. Yet, you, rather foolishly, claim that during that at that time Frazier not only knew DPD was looking for him but that it was in connection with Oswald (who at that time wasn't charged with JFK's murder) and that he went to his sister to concoct a story.
Frazier is not interrogated until after 9PM. Frazier was a person of interest due to his association with Oswald. He certainly knew by the time he was questioned by the DPD that Oswald was a suspect.
By 9 PM, yes, but how did that give him an opportunity to synchronize his story with his sister? It didn't!
This is just more tossing and turning on your part. First you claimed that prior to his detention Frazier already knew that DPD wanted to talk to him in connection with Oswald and that this was the reason he went to his sister to concoct a story. Now, you've got him being aware of a potential problem at 9 PM and at the police station, with no way to concoct any kind of story with Randle. So, which of the two is it?
The DPD wanted to talk with him that night for that reason.
Again, that night, yes. But not during the daytime. They wanted to talk to him as one of the workers who had been on the 6th floor. Just like Fritz, initially, wanted to talk to Oswald because he was missing from the TSBD line up.
He knew when he answered those questions that he was in potential trouble.
Really? Did he tell you that?
He had good cause to be concerned that the police or public would attempt to hold him accountable based on what he had knew prior to the assassination.
Says you with flawed hindsight.
So his answers are potentially skewed with an obvious desire to distance himself from any reason to be suspicious of Oswald's behavior. As a result, he wasn't paying much attention that morning, no talk, just driving in silence.
And there it is, the real reason for all the speculation, twisting and turning and assumptions. You just want to argue that Frazier had instant knowledge of Oswald's guilt that he lied to investigators from day one and has been lying ever since.
Ain't it nice when you can just make up stuff that fits your narrative.
-
Lee was arrested at about 1:50.....When was the name Oswald first broadcast ? I doubt that Frazier heard Lee's name as a suspect on his car radio.
Lee told the HSCA that he heard that a guy named Oswald had been arrested, but he didn't know Lee's surname.
The only source of information available to Frazier between leaving the TSBD at 1:30 PM and his detention at the hospital, at around 6 PM, would have been his car radio. It seems unlikely that he heard the news about Oswald's arrest during his trip to Irving, so the only other time he could have heard it would be during the trip from his sister's house to the hospital. A very narrow window indeed.
Yet, "Richard", claims that Frazier went to his sister to get their story straight because he somehow already knew at 1:30 PM or shortly thereafter that DPD would be looking for him in connection with Oswald (who at that time had not even been arrested).
Go figure!
-
Again, a lot of words but not a shred of evidence for this BS
Frazier was not "arrested" until after 6PM. Four hours after Oswald is taken into custody.
Again, Oswald was arrested for the Tippit murder and Frazier only knew his first name. During the time between leaving the TSBD at 1:30 PM and his detention at the hospital at 6 PM his only source of information was his car radio, which had only told him that somebody named Oswald had been arrested. At that time Frazier did not know Lee's surname. Yet, you, rather foolishly, claim that during that at that time Frazier not only knew DPD was looking for him but that it was in connection with Oswald (who at that time wasn't charged with JFK's murder) and that he went to his sister to concoct a story.
Frazier is not interrogated until after 9PM. Frazier was a person of interest due to his association with Oswald. He certainly knew by the time he was questioned by the DPD that Oswald was a suspect.
By 9 PM, yes, but how did that give him an opportunity to synchronize his story with his sister? It didn't!
This is just more tossing and turning on your part. First you claimed that prior to his detention Frazier already knew that DPD wanted to talk to him in connection with Oswald and that this was the reason he went to his sister to concoct a story. Now, you've got him being aware of a potential problem at 9 PM and at the police station, with no way to concoct any kind of story with Randle. So, which of the two is it?
The DPD wanted to talk with him that night for that reason.
Again, that night, yes. But not during the daytime. They wanted to talk to him as one of the workers who had been on the 6th floor. Just like Fritz, initially, wanted to talk to Oswald because he was missing from the TSBD line up.
He knew when he answered those questions that he was in potential trouble.
Really? Did he tell you that?
He had good cause to be concerned that the police or public would attempt to hold him accountable based on what he had knew prior to the assassination.
Says you with flawed hindsight.
So his answers are potentially skewed with an obvious desire to distance himself from any reason to be suspicious of Oswald's behavior. As a result, he wasn't paying much attention that morning, no talk, just driving in silence.
And there it is, the real reason for all the speculation, twisting and turning and assumptions. You just want to argue that Frazier had instant knowledge of Oswald's guilt that he lied to investigators from day one and has been lying ever since.
Ain't it nice when you can just make up stuff that fits your narrative.
This is really, really simple. There's no need for any long winded contrarian mumbo jumbo. Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt. Try to focus. There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag that could have contained a rifle. Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
-
This is really, really simple. There's no need for any long winded contrarian mumbo jumbo. Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt. Try to focus. There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag that could have contained a rifle. Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
NINE HOURS??? The DPD detectives went to the hospital in Irving where Linnie Mae told them Buell was visiting his step father. That was about two or three hours after Lee had been dragged from the Theater.
-
Frazier left the TSBD and went home around 1.30. On the way he heard of JFK death on the car radio. He did not go immediately to the Irving hospital. He likely got home around 2pm. It seems likely LMR and his mother were watching assassination coverage according to his HSCA interview. Oswald was first mentioned in the media around 2.40. At that time there were already 6 cops at the Paine's just a few houses away. I suggest that Frazier and his sister "disappeared" for some time to work on a story that would minimise any trouble for him.
According to his HSCA interview at sometime after they left the cops visited his mother at the house and spoke with her.
Anyone want to object to that scenario?
You guys really think he heard Oswald's name on the car radio? How long do you think it took to get to the Irving hospital even if the drove there directly......which he didnt?
-
This is really, really simple. There's no need for any long winded contrarian mumbo jumbo. Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt. Try to focus. There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag that could have contained a rifle. Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt.
You, at least implied it
There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
Nobody argued otherwise.
Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag
So what?
that could have contained a rifle.
No, that's just your preferred version. All Frazier knew is that the bag contained curtain rods and that the bag wasn't long enough to contain a rifle.
Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
No, if he had grounds for concern it would only have been because of the fact that he drove Oswald to work that morning. Frazier did nothing wrong and had no need to concoct a story.
As you are now shifting your position from "he went to Irving to get his story straight with his sister" to "he understood he could be in trouble after he was arrested", you are overlooking one thing.
In the second scenario he did not have an opportunity to get his story straight with his sister, which means that lying to the police could probably get him in bigger trouble than simply telling the truth.
Your desperate attempt to claim that Frazier had reason for concern and thus lied to the police about the size of the bag is just a pathetic attempt to explain away why Frazier (and Randle) estimated the bag at 27". It's pathetic.
-
You guys really think he heard Oswald's name on the car radio? How long do you think it took to get to the Irving hospital even if the drove there directly......which he didnt?
I actually do not think that. Oswald wasn't yet arrested when Frazier left the TSBD and he would have arrived in Irving before Oswald's name was broadcast. On the short trip to Irving hospital, there is a minimal possibility that he might have heard it, but he told the HSCA that he didn't even know Lee's surname at that time.
-
by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
NINE HOURS??? The DPD detectives went to the hospital in Irving where Linnie Mae told them Buell was visiting his step father. That was about two or three hours after Lee had been dragged from the Theater.
Oswald was picked up at the Irving Hospital after 6PM and interrogated by Fritz after 9PM. So do the math.
From the Bugliosi book:
5:57PM. Detectives Stovall and Ross turn their attention to locating Wesley Frazier. If for no other reason than that he had driven Oswald to work that day and his present whereabouts are unknown...it takes detectives nearly forty-five minutes to determine that he is actually at the Irving Professional Center, a medical facility.
9:00PM. Detectives Stovall and Rose lead Wesley Frazier, his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, and their pastor, Reverend Campble of the Irving Baptist Church, into the back room of Homicide Robbery. Since being arrested an hour and a half ago, Frazier has been very cooperative with police, allowing officers to search his car and his home, where they confiscated a .303 caliber rifle, a full clip, and a partial box of ammunition. Captain Fritz comes back and questions both Wesley Frazier and his sister.
-
Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt.
You, at least implied it
There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect.
Nobody argued otherwise.
Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag
So what?
that could have contained a rifle.
No, that's just your preferred version. All Frazier knew is that the bag contained curtain rods and that the bag wasn't long enough to contain a rifle.
Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
No, if he had grounds for concern it would only have been because of the fact that he drove Oswald to work that morning. Frazier did nothing wrong and had no need to concoct a story.
As you are now shifting your position from "he went to Irving to get his story straight with his sister" to "he understood he could be in trouble after he was arrested", you are overlooking one thing.
In the second scenario he did not have an opportunity to get his story straight with his sister, which means that lying to the police could probably get him in bigger trouble than simply telling the truth.
Your desperate attempt to claim that Frazier had reason for concern and thus lied to the police about the size of the bag is just a pathetic attempt to explain away why Frazier (and Randle) estimated the bag at 27". It's pathetic.
Frazier had ample opportunity to get his story straight with his sister. In one interview, he indicated that he called her from the hospital. In addition, she was at the police station with him for hours and Fritz apparently questioned them together around 9PM. The larger point, however, which you had disputed is that Frazier obviously knew Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination prior to being questioned by Fritz. All of his answers would have been given with the knowledge that he had driven the suspected assassin to the TSBD that morning.
-
Frazier had ample opportunity to get his story straight with his sister. In one interview, he indicated that he called her from the hospital. In addition, she was at the police station with him for hours and Fritz apparently questioned them together around 9PM. The larger point, however, which you had disputed is that Frazier obviously knew Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination prior to being questioned by Fritz. All of his answers would have been given with the knowledge that he had driven the suspected assassin to the TSBD that morning.
Frazier had ample opportunity to get his story straight with his sister.
Stop contradicting yourself. If Frazier was not aware of the fact that DPD were looking for him until they detained him at the hospital, he had no reason to get his story straight with his sister.
In one interview, he indicated that he called her from the hospital
In what interview would that be?
In addition, she was at the police station with him for hours and Fritz apparently questioned them together around 9PM.
Really? And where did you get this information? Police officers are normally not in the habit of letting witnesses/suspects talk to eachother prior to being interviewed.
Would this be the interview where Fritz put a pre-written confession before Frazier for him to sign?
The larger point, however, which you had disputed is that Frazier obviously knew Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination prior to being questioned by Fritz.
For crying out loud. I never disputed that. He must have become aware of the information somewhere between his detention at the hospital at 6 PM and his interview with Fritz and his subsequent polygraph. But by that time there was no way he could communicate with his sister. In other words, if his statement would differ from hers, because he was lying (as you claim) he would have to fear the consequences than he would by telling the truth.
All of his answers would have been given with the knowledge that he had driven the suspected assassin to the TSBD that morning.
I wonder if that's even true, because Oswald wasn't charged with JFK's murder until shortly before midnight. Frazier might have know Oswald was in custody by 9 PM, but he had no way of knowing for what exactly. As far as he was concered, all he did was drive a co-worker to work and they guy carried a 27" bag which contained curtain rods. There is nothing illegal or criminal about that.
-
I actually do not think that. Oswald wasn't yet arrested when Frazier left the TSBD and he would have arrived in Irving before Oswald's name was broadcast. On the short trip to Irving hospital, there is a minimal possibility that he might have heard it, but he told the HSCA that he didn't even know Lee's surname at that time.
As soon as Oswald's name was broadcast, about 2.40, the Frazier family knew of the peril Buell was in. Frazier knew Lee was missing before he left. He knew that employees would tell the cops Lee got a ride with him. There were cops half a block away at the Paine's after 2.30pm. He and his sister could have walked there and talked to them. After he left home his mother was visited by some cops looking for him. She could have called the hospital to alert brother and sister. What we got was the bogus hospital trip to visit his abusive step father.....
-
Looks like LMR was pretty quick to work things out......
(https://i.ibb.co/VxXJGN7/CCAD8-F50-A8-D2-43-D8-A1-C5-84-F28-DDA8-EC3.jpg)
From her Nov28 SS interview.
-
This is really, really simple. There's no need for any long winded contrarian mumbo jumbo. Who said Frazier had "instant" knowledge of Oswald's guilt. Try to focus. There is no doubt that by the time Frazier was questioned by the DPD approximately nine hours after the assassination that he knew Oswald was a suspect. Obviously, he also knew that he had driven Oswald to work that morning and that Oswald carried a long narrow bag that could have contained a rifle. Therefore, he had grounds to be concerned about whether he would be implicated and his answers to any questions would reflect that concern.
:D :D :D
Nice disinformation.
Frazier was not questioned "nine hours" after the assassination happened.
Frazier left work after it was shutdown for the day and headed directly to the hospital to visit his step father.
On the way to the hospital he learned that Oswald was a suspect in the assassination.
Frazier was at the hospital no more than 20 minutes before the detectives took him to the station for questioning and that was in the afternoon. He was being interrogated all evening long.
According to your bogus claim, Frazier wouldn't have been interrogated until 10:30 PM and that is blatantly false. He was let go at midnight.
-
Frazier had ample opportunity to get his story straight with his sister.
Wrong. Frazier did not have "ample time to get his story straight with his sister". Right after he was let out of work Frazier headed directly to the hospital and phoned his sister. Not long after that the detectives arrived to take him in. That is not "ample time".
In one interview, he indicated that he called her from the hospital. In addition, she was at the police station with him for hours and Fritz apparently questioned them together around 9PM. The larger point, however, which you had disputed is that Frazier obviously knew Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination prior to being questioned by Fritz. All of his answers would have been given with the knowledge that he had driven the suspected assassin to the TSBD that morning.
A lot of spin here with no facts. This is Richard creating his own events of what he wants you to believe happened.
Frazier was not "arrested" until after 6PM. Four hours after Oswald is taken into custody. Frazier is not interrogated until after 9PM.
Wrong again. Frazier was taken to the station in the afternoon when he was at the hospital for a short amount of time. Frazier was already being interrogated for hours before 9 PM.
The DPD wanted to talk with him that night for that reason. He knew that. He knew when he answered those questions that he was in potential trouble. Frazier is the Ned Spangler of the JFK assassination. He had good cause to be concerned that the police or public would attempt to hold him accountable based on what he had knew prior to the assassination. So his answers are potentially skewed with an obvious desire to distance himself from any reason to be suspicious of Oswald's behavior. As a result, he wasn't paying much attention that morning, no talk, just driving in silence.
More spin of what Richard wants you to believe.
Frazier was interrogated by different sets of detectives and was thoroughly grilled. They all knew Frazier knew nothing and they let him go. Otherwise they would have booked him as a suspect and co-conspirator.
-
:D :D :D
Nice disinformation.
Frazier was not questioned "nine hours" after the assassination happened.
Frazier left work after it was shutdown for the day and headed directly to the hospital to visit his step father.
On the way to the hospital he learned that Oswald was a suspect in the assassination.
Frazier was at the hospital no more than 20 minutes before the detectives took him to the station for questioning and that was in the afternoon. He was being interrogated all evening long.
According to your bogus claim, Frazier wouldn't have been interrogated until 10:30 PM and that is blatantly false. He was let go at midnight.
Please read my posts Rick. Frazier did not go immediately to the hospital. That story is bogus.
Mr. BALL. You brought Ruth Paine and Marina down to the police department, did you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we took Ruth Paine and Marina and Marina's two children in our car and also the blanket--I carried it.
Mr. BALL. And the rest of that day you spent in inquiring for and looking around for Wesley Frazier?
Mr. ROSE. Well, we came on back to the city hall and we took Ruth Paine and Michael Paine and Marina Oswald to the homicide office, but it was so crowded that we transferred them to the forgery bureau office next door, and then someone came over and I believe it was the Detective Senkel, to take affidavits from them and I immediately started trying to locate Wesley Frazier. We were told that he would be at Parkland Hospital, but we checked through Parkland and there was no Fraziers there and I started a heck of the clinics and the doctors' offices in Irving, and I located through one of the nurses, I believe, or talked to someone on the phone there that Mr. Frazier was in the hospital there at Irving Clinic, so I called Detective McCabe in Irving and that Wesley was the one that had brought Lee Oswald to work that morning.
Why didn’t Rose simply call LMR to determine the hospital once Parland wasn’t the one?
-
Considering that Rose and Stovall reported that it was McCabe who arrested Frazier at the hospital and they picked him up at the Irving PD does this compensate some of the time loss? Why would Frazier completely remove McCabe from his recounting of the events, even in his HSCA interview?
-
Considering that Rose and Stovall reported that it was McCabe who arrested Frazier at the hospital and they picked him up at the Irving PD does this compensate some of the time loss? Why would Frazier completely remove McCabe from his recounting of the events, even in his HSCA interview?
Mr Crow, what (if anything) do you believe Mr Oswald actually brought with him to work that morning?
-
Mr Crow, what (if anything) do you believe Mr Oswald actually brought with him to work that morning?
I don’t know Alan. I doubt that he bought anything in CE142. I was just going through my stuff on Linnie May and it seems her first mention of curtain rods was the day after the assassination. Given her curiosity about Oswald's unusual Thursday visit and her knowledge of the curtain rods on that day, seems strange they weren’t mentioned by her until Saturday.
I need to go back over Frazier's statements and those who interviewed him to find the first reference to curtain rods.
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
-
I don’t know Alan. I doubt that he bought anything in CE142. I was just going through my stuff on Linnie May and it seems her first mention of curtain rods was the day after the assassination. Given her curiosity about Oswald's unusual Thursday visit and her knowledge of the curtain rods on that day, seems strange they weren’t mentioned by her until Saturday.
I need to go back over Frazier's statements and those who interviewed him to find the first reference to curtain rods.
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
Or, alternatively, Frazier and Randle were simply telling the truth about the curtain rods, in which case no story needed to be created.
-
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
Or, alternatively, Frazier and Randle were simply telling the truth about the curtain rods, in which case no story needed to be created.
Not disagreeing Martin. There are numerous possibilities. One is that the police mentioned a paper bag first, not the other way around.
-
From Frazier’s first day statement....
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Anyone want to show how the CE139 stock fits into CE142 with both evidence of both ends folded over?
-
Not disagreeing Martin. There are numerous possibilities. One is that the police mentioned a paper bag first, not the other way around.
Indeed. The point that I have been trying to make is that we can only speculate about what actually happened based on the assumption that the curtain rods story is either true or a lie.
To "Richard" all sorts of things are "obvious" when in fact they are pure speculation to support his main and highly speculative argument that Frazier tried to downplay his involvement by concocting a story about a small size bag with Randle. It is a desperate attempt to get a 34.8" broken down rifle into the bag Oswald was carrying.
-
Indeed. The point that I have been trying to make is that we can only speculate about what actually happened based on the assumption that the curtain rods story is either true or a lie.
To "Richard" all sorts of things are "obvious" when in fact they are pure speculation to support his main and highly speculative argument that Frazier tried to downplay his involvement by concocting a story about a small size bag with Randle. It is a desperate attempt to get a 34.8" broken down rifle into the bag Oswald was carrying.
Martin, as a research scientist my approach is to look at all the available documents and try and include possibilities until they can be excluded. Corroboration ranks highly in the process along with consistency over time.
Usually I attempt to construct a timeline (or sequence) of events and see how the individual reports fit. For this timeline you need to look at the statements of Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Rose, Stovall and others to get an idea of the sequence.
Frazier's story that he drove to the Irving hospital directly from the TSBD, was there just a few minutes before his arrest by Rose and Stovall is unsupportable. It makes no sense to go there first. It is inconsistent with his HSCA interview and the time loss amounts to hours.
-
Wrong. Frazier did not have "ample time to get his story straight with his sister". Right after he was let out of work Frazier headed directly to the hospital and phoned his sister. Not long after that the detectives arrived to take him in. That is not "ample time".
A lot of spin here with no facts. This is Richard creating his own events of what he wants you to believe happened.
Wrong again. Frazier was taken to the station in the afternoon when he was at the hospital for a short amount of time. Frazier was already being interrogated for hours before 9 PM.
More spin of what Richard wants you to believe.
Frazier was interrogated by different sets of detectives and was thoroughly grilled. They all knew Frazier knew nothing and they let him go. Otherwise they would have booked him as a suspect and co-conspirator.
Right after he was let out of work Frazier headed directly to the hospital and phoned his sister. Not long after that the detectives arrived to take him in. That is not "ample time".
Quantify, in minutes:
A) 'Right after'
B) 'Not long after that'
C) 'Not ample time'
D) 'A short amount of time'
How long would it take Linnie to say, for example, 'shrink the bag size, 'bro, or we're screwed. Go with two feet'
-
Please read my posts Rick. Frazier did not go immediately to the hospital. That story is bogus.
Mr. BALL. You brought Ruth Paine and Marina down to the police department, did you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we took Ruth Paine and Marina and Marina's two children in our car and also the blanket--I carried it.
Mr. BALL. And the rest of that day you spent in inquiring for and looking around for Wesley Frazier?
Mr. ROSE. Well, we came on back to the city hall and we took Ruth Paine and Michael Paine and Marina Oswald to the homicide office, but it was so crowded that we transferred them to the forgery bureau office next door, and then someone came over and I believe it was the Detective Senkel, to take affidavits from them and I immediately started trying to locate Wesley Frazier. We were told that he would be at Parkland Hospital, but we checked through Parkland and there was no Fraziers there and I started a heck of the clinics and the doctors' offices in Irving, and I located through one of the nurses, I believe, or talked to someone on the phone there that Mr. Frazier was in the hospital there at Irving Clinic, so I called Detective McCabe in Irving and that Wesley was the one that had brought Lee Oswald to work that morning.
Why didn’t Rose simply call LMR to determine the hospital once Parland wasn’t the one?
Frazier on several occasions stated he directly went to the hospital after he was let out of work. He stated he wasn't there very long before the detectives took him in for questioning. That questioning lasted several hours. It couldn't be later in the evening because he was released after midnight and it wouldn't have been several hours if he was taken in later.
Frazier and the rest of the employees at the school book depository were sent home early from work. Frazier went to Irving to visit his stepfather, who was in the hospital.
By then, Dallas police detectives had figured out that Frazier had driven Oswald to work that morning. They tracked him down at the hospital and arrested him.
After hours of interrogation, Frazier said, an angry police captain came into the room, demanding that he sign a confession.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2013/04/01/co-worker-who-drove-oswald-to-school-book-depository-recounts-dallas-darkest-day/
-
You guys really think he heard Oswald's name on the car radio? How long do you think it took to get to the Irving hospital even if the drove there directly......which he didnt?
Would like to run this scenario by you as it's the one I believe covers most (but not all) the inconsistencies concerning the curtain rods.
Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Paine's Thursday explaining he wants to collect curtain rods.
Oswald has been in the Paine garage and is well aware of the curtain rods.
Ruth Paine testifies that two curtain rods were in the garage before and after the assassination (rods measured at 27.5 inches)
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
After leaving work Frazier returns home and realises Oswald is involved.
It dawns on him that the long, rifle-looking package Oswald showed up with was indeed the rifle that killed JFK.
How can anyone believe Frazier wasn't aware Oswald was carrying a rifle?
When he looks back on it he can't believe he accepted it was curtain rods, it looked nothing like curtain rods, it was clearly a rifle.
He is definitely going down as an accessory - the man who drove the assassin and his poorly disguised rifle to the scene of the crime.
So he gets together with Linnie to concoct the curtain rod story - Oswald did indeed have a long package but no way was it long enough to be a rifle. It was definitely curtain rod length just like Oswald said.
Linnie heads home and sees the activity outside the Paine's (maybe the mother has seen the activity and let them know).
Linnie tells Adamcik about Oswald and his definitely curtain rod length package.
-
Frazier on several occasions stated he directly went to the hospital after he was let out of work. He stated he wasn't there very long before the detectives took him in for questioning. That questioning lasted several hours. It couldn't be later in the evening because he was released after midnight and it wouldn't have been several hours if he was taken in later.
Frazier and the rest of the employees at the school book depository were sent home early from work. Frazier went to Irving to visit his stepfather, who was in the hospital.
By then, Dallas police detectives had figured out that Frazier had driven Oswald to work that morning. They tracked him down at the hospital and arrested him.
After hours of interrogation, Frazier said, an angry police captain came into the room, demanding that he sign a confession.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2013/04/01/co-worker-who-drove-oswald-to-school-book-depository-recounts-dallas-darkest-day/
I am well aware of Frazier's various statements about his movements after leaving the TSBD.
Can you find any earlier statements from Frazier than his HSCA interview?
Timestamps provided for reference.
14:51 He went to his sister's house and his Mother was there – then went to hospital – Irving Professional Center – was giving step father oxygen
“Sister said, she was there” she had to go somewhere. I can give him oxygen.
Phone call – after the oxygen – two detectives tried to grab him - he ran to the exit – they said stop or they will shoot – frisked and shake down occurred – Rose and Stovall – they thought it was strange he ran - took to Irving PS – took to Dallas
27:20 He got home and it was on TV – sister knew what had happened (TSBD) – "we both said it was bad thing" there is a significant------8 sec pause ----- “she said”…then the story changes back….."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.
31.10 Has an interesting exchange about the curtain rod story.
32.00 when he got home he backed his car up by the car port.
32:30 Cops went to my sisters house first – asked my mother - she told them he was up at hospital with sister.
-
Would like to run this scenario by you as it's the one I believe covers most (but not all) the inconsistencies concerning the curtain rods.
Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Paine's Thursday explaining he wants to collect curtain rods.
Oswald has been in the Paine garage and is well aware of the curtain rods.
Ruth Paine testifies that two curtain rods were in the garage before and after the assassination (rods measured at 27.5 inches)
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
After leaving work Frazier returns home and realises Oswald is involved.
It dawns on him that the long, rifle-looking package Oswald showed up with was indeed the rifle that killed JFK.
How can anyone believe Frazier wasn't aware Oswald was carrying a rifle?
When he looks back on it he can't believe he accepted it was curtain rods, it looked nothing like curtain rods, it was clearly a rifle.
He is definitely going down as an accessory - the man who drove the assassin and his poorly disguised rifle to the scene of the crime.
So he gets together with Linnie to concoct the curtain rod story - Oswald did indeed have a long package but no way was it long enough to be a rifle. It was definitely curtain rod length just like Oswald said.
Linnie heads home and sees the activity outside the Paine's (maybe the mother has seen the activity and let them know).
Linnie tells Adamcik about Oswald and his definitely curtain rod length package.
I could go with most of what you propose Dan. I think the curtain rod idea originated with Frazier and LMR only got the message by the next day.
Perhaps someone could answer my previous question about the bag.
From Frazier’s first day statement....
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Anyone want to show how the CE139 stock fits into CE142 with both evidence of both ends folded over?
In any event why the need for a bag? The rifle was not obvious to anyone in the blanket. Why not just tell Frazier he was picking up some camping equipment to sell?
-
I could go with most of what you propose Dan. I think the curtain rod idea originated with Frazier and LMR only got the message by the next day.
Perhaps someone could answer my previous question about the bag.
From Frazier’s first day statement....
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Anyone want to show how the CE139 stock fits into CE142 with both evidence of both ends folded over?
In any event why the need for a bag? The rifle was not obvious to anyone in the blanket. Why not just tell Frazier he was picking up some camping equipment to sell?
In any event why the need for a bag? The rifle was not obvious to anyone in the blanket. Why not just tell Frazier he was picking up some camping equipment to sell?
Or why construct the bag at all when he could have carried the rifle in the same way that he allegedly succesfully did on public transport on his way to New Orleans?
-
Would like to run this scenario by you as it's the one I believe covers most (but not all) the inconsistencies concerning the curtain rods.
Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Paine's Thursday explaining he wants to collect curtain rods.
Oswald has been in the Paine garage and is well aware of the curtain rods.
Ruth Paine testifies that two curtain rods were in the garage before and after the assassination (rods measured at 27.5 inches)
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
After leaving work Frazier returns home and realises Oswald is involved.
It dawns on him that the long, rifle-looking package Oswald showed up with was indeed the rifle that killed JFK.
How can anyone believe Frazier wasn't aware Oswald was carrying a rifle?
When he looks back on it he can't believe he accepted it was curtain rods, it looked nothing like curtain rods, it was clearly a rifle.
He is definitely going down as an accessory - the man who drove the assassin and his poorly disguised rifle to the scene of the crime.
So he gets together with Linnie to concoct the curtain rod story - Oswald did indeed have a long package but no way was it long enough to be a rifle. It was definitely curtain rod length just like Oswald said.
Linnie heads home and sees the activity outside the Paine's (maybe the mother has seen the activity and let them know).
Linnie tells Adamcik about Oswald and his definitely curtain rod length package.
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
At this point you've lost me. There is nothing "really obvious" about it. A 34.8" long bag would not have fitted between the palm of Oswald's hand and underneath his shoulder nor would Oswald been able to carry the package, as described by Randle, without hitting the ground.
From this point onwards most of what you have written is pure speculation and conjecture.
I have met Frazier and he is absolutely 100% convinced that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a 34.8" broken down rifle. I have no reason to assume that he has been lying about this all his life.
-
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
At this point you've lost me. There is nothing "really obvious" about it. A 34.8" long bag would not have fitted between the palm of Oswald's hand and underneath his shoulder nor would Oswald been able to carry the package, as described by Randle, without hitting the ground.
From this point onwards most of what you have written is pure speculation and conjecture.
I have met Frazier and he is absolutely 100% convinced that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a 34.8" broken down rifle. I have no reason to assume that he has been lying about this all his life.
Buell testified that he never saw Oswald carrying the package from the front. An honest man would acknowledge that fact.
A Buell Frazier in CYA mode is going to remain in said mode the rest of his life, at least in front of strangers. And what makes you think anybody around here is going to take you at your damn word?
So not even a selfie with Buell?
-
Buell testified that he never saw Oswald carrying the package from the front. An honest man would acknowledge that fact.
A Buell Frazier in CYA mode is going to remain in said mode the rest of his life, at least in front of strangers. And what makes you think anybody around here is going to take you at your damn word?
So not even a selfie with Buell?
Buell testified that he never saw Oswald carrying the package from the front. An honest man would acknowledge that fact.
BS
If he hadn't seen Oswald carrying the package from the front, he wouldn't be able to describe how he held it.
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
And what makes you think anybody around here is going to take you at your damn word?
Don't care if you do or not. There will always be dishonest idiots like you, who would not believe Buell if he said it to them in person.
So not even a selfie with Buell?
Oh yes, there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
-
I don’t know Alan. I doubt that he bought anything in CE142. I was just going through my stuff on Linnie May and it seems her first mention of curtain rods was the day after the assassination. Given her curiosity about Oswald's unusual Thursday visit and her knowledge of the curtain rods on that day, seems strange they weren’t mentioned by her until Saturday.
I need to go back over Frazier's statements and those who interviewed him to find the first reference to curtain rods.
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
Thank you, Mr Crow! Thumb1:
-
Just checked and curtain rods appears in his statement dated 22November. So the curtain rod story genesis had occurred by the late evening that day.
Or, alternatively, Frazier and Randle were simply telling the truth about the curtain rods, in which case no story needed to be created.
Exactly my view of the case----------with the added detail that Mr Oswald was simply telling the truth about the curtain rods too
-
Buell testified that he never saw Oswald carrying the package from the front. An honest man would acknowledge that fact.
BS
If he hadn't seen Oswald carrying the package from the front, he wouldn't be able to describe how he held it.
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
And what makes you think anybody around here is going to take you at your damn word?
Don't care if you do or not. There will always be dishonest idiots like you, who would not believe Buell if he said it to them in person.
So not even a selfie with Buell?
Oh yes, there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
There will always be dishonest idiots like you, who would not believe Buell if he said it to them in person.
I said a Buell Frazier in CYA mode. Therefore whatever a Buell Frazier in CYA mode says means nothing if indeed he was in CYA mode. There will always be an Oswald-lover who will immediately glom on to whatever a Buell Frazier in CYA mode says, and then cling onto for dear life.
Oh yes, there are photographs but you will never get to see them
'Oh yes, there are photographs'. Yeah sure. And I met Oswald, and yes there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
-
There will always be dishonest idiots like you, who would not believe Buell if he said it to them in person.
I said a Buell Frazier in CYA mode. Therefore whatever a Buell Frazier in CYA mode says means nothing if indeed he was in CYA mode. There will always be an Oswald-lover who will immediately glom on to whatever a Buell Frazier in CYA mode says, and then cling onto for dear life.
Oh yes, there are photographs but you will never get to see them
'Oh yes, there are photographs'. Yeah sure. And I met Oswald, and yes there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
I said a Buell Frazier in CYA mode.
Nobody cares what you say. Given a choice between the words of Frazier and you, you'll always lose.
'Oh yes, there are photographs'. Yeah sure. And I met Oswald, and yes there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
Not interested in seeing a photograph of one corpse visiting another.
-
The next morning Oswald shows up with a long package that, in retrospect, is really obviously a rifle but Oswald palms it off as curtain rods and Frazier swallows it (not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
At this point you've lost me. There is nothing "really obvious" about it. A 34.8" long bag would not have fitted between the palm of Oswald's hand and underneath his shoulder nor would Oswald been able to carry the package, as described by Randle, without hitting the ground.
From this point onwards most of what you have written is pure speculation and conjecture.
I have met Frazier and he is absolutely 100% convinced that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a 34.8" broken down rifle. I have no reason to assume that he has been lying about this all his life.
You've missed the point Martin.
I was putting forward a made-up scenario to try to account for various aspects of the curtain rods.
In the scenario WBF and LMR concoct the story about the curtain rods to conceal that Oswald carried a rifle to work that day and Frazier would've been up s"^t creek for bringing the assassin of JFK and his rifle to work that morning.
One of the aspects this scenario covers is that Ruth Paine testified there was just 2 curtain rods in her garage which she had wrapped herself and that the curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination. This means Oswald never took the curtain rods to work that morning.
Mr. JENNER - Now, that morning--if I may, Mr. Chairman, because of the entry of the police, that is a good cutoff point, I would like to go back to the morning for the moment, or the evening before. Mrs. Paine, did you then have what might be called some curtain rods in your garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe there were.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have a recollection?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they were stored in the garage, wrapped in loose brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - Is it the brown paper of the nature and character you described yesterday that you get at the market and have in a roll?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Had you wrapped that package yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
The curtain rods were collected from the Paine's garage, there was only two of them and both were there.
-
You've missed the point Martin.
I was putting forward a made-up scenario to try to account for various aspects of the curtain rods.
In the scenario WBF and LMR concoct the story about the curtain rods to conceal that Oswald carried a rifle to work that day and Frazier would've been up s"^t creek for bringing the assassin of JFK and his rifle to work that morning.
One of the aspects this scenario covers is that Ruth Paine testified there was just 2 curtain rods in her garage which she had wrapped herself and that the curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination. This means Oswald never took the curtain rods to work that morning.
Mr. JENNER - Now, that morning--if I may, Mr. Chairman, because of the entry of the police, that is a good cutoff point, I would like to go back to the morning for the moment, or the evening before. Mrs. Paine, did you then have what might be called some curtain rods in your garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe there were.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have a recollection?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they were stored in the garage, wrapped in loose brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - Is it the brown paper of the nature and character you described yesterday that you get at the market and have in a roll?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Had you wrapped that package yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Now, how many of them were there?
Mrs. PAINE - Two.
Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
The curtain rods were collected from the Paine's garage, there was only two of them and both were there.
The curtain rods were collected from the Paine's garage, there was only two of them and both were there.
Which suggests that there must have been a third set, which was presented to the identification bureau of the DPD by Secret Service Agent Howlett on 5/15/64 and not collected from there until the day after Ruth Paine's testimony at her home, which was when the two sets of curtain rods were collected.
There is of course always the possibility that Oswald had a set of curtain rods stored with his belongings of which Ruth Paine knew nothing. It is speculation, but it would explain the anomaly in the evidence.
-
The curtain rods were collected from the Paine's garage, there was only two of them and both were there.
Which suggests that there must have been a third set, which was presented to the identification bureau of the DPD by Secret Service Agent Howlett on 5/15/64 and not collected from there until the day after Ruth Paine's testimony at her home, which was when the two sets of curtain rods were collected.
There is of course always the possibility that Oswald had a set of curtain rods stored with his belongings of which Ruth Paine knew nothing. It is speculation, but it would explain the anomaly in the evidence.
Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which?
Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage.
This is pure comedy. As if establishing whether any curtain rods had gone missing from the garage were not one of the most urgent tasks of the investigation on Day One!
-
(https://i.ibb.co/6rVbTMT/52-E49-C48-62-DF-4-D9-D-8-EC8-A7-B903-CEA6-C9.jpg)
-
In March 1964 it seems he went home.....no mention of the hospital visit.
Mr. BALL - At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
Mr. BALL - Then you went on home?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Buell went home.....as one would expect.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/6rVbTMT/52-E49-C48-62-DF-4-D9-D-8-EC8-A7-B903-CEA6-C9.jpg)
Notice what Det. McCabe & Co. didn't officially
a) look for
b) find
in the Paine home!
-
I said a Buell Frazier in CYA mode.
Nobody cares what you say. Given a choice between the words of Frazier and you, you'll always lose.
'Oh yes, there are photographs'. Yeah sure. And I met Oswald, and yes there are photographs but you will never get to see them.
Not interested in seeing a photograph of one corpse visiting another.
Another shallow nothingburger from the CT lunatic fringe. You've clearly missed my point. But inadvertently proved it, by doing exactly what I said: That you Oswald-lovers will cling onto anything that even a Buell Frazier in CYA mode would say.
Buell Frazier clearly owns you.
EDIT: 8:50am EST
-
Another shallow nothingburger from the CT lunatic fringe. You've clearly missed my point. But inadvertently proved it, by doing exactly what I said: That you Oswald-lovers will cling onto anything that even a Buell Frazier in CYA mode would say.
Buell Frazier clearly owns you.
EDIT: 8:50am EST
Again, nobody cares what you say.
I have no idea what Buell Frazier would have said in CYA mode and neither do you.
-
Again, nobody cares what you say.
I have no idea what Buell Frazier would have said in CYA mode and neither do you.
Again, nobody cares what you say
And yet here you are. Again.
A Buell Frazier in CYA mode automatically dictates, by definition, what he would say.
-
Another shallow nothingburger from the CT lunatic fringe. You've clearly missed my point. But inadvertently proved it, by doing exactly what I said: That you Oswald-lovers will cling onto anything that even a Buell Frazier in CYA mode would say.
Buell Frazier clearly owns you.
EDIT: 8:50am EST
That you Oswald-lovers
My Dear agent Chapman....This forum is about Truth and Justice. You've been desperately trying to denigrate Lee Oswald since you first appeared on the forum. This is not about Lee Oswald...it's about justice. So calling him names makes you look like a idiot.
-
All of his answers would have been given with the knowledge that he had driven the suspected assassin to the TSBD that morning.
I wonder if that's even true, because Oswald wasn't charged with JFK's murder until shortly before midnight. Frazier might have know Oswald was in custody by 9 PM, but he had no way of knowing for what exactly. As far as he was concered, all he did was drive a co-worker to work and they guy carried a 27" bag which contained curtain rods. There is nothing illegal or criminal about that.
Are you really suggesting that by 9PM that Frazier didn't know Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination because he hadn't been charged at that point? Wow. I've read some kookery but that one is far out. Frazier is sitting in the police station. Oswald's arrest has been widely reported. They have checked his car and home with his cooperation. What does Frazier think they are looking for in his car if he has no idea Oswald is a suspect in the JFK assassination?
-
:D :D :D
Nice disinformation.
Frazier was not questioned "nine hours" after the assassination happened.
Frazier left work after it was shutdown for the day and headed directly to the hospital to visit his step father.
On the way to the hospital he learned that Oswald was a suspect in the assassination.
Frazier was at the hospital no more than 20 minutes before the detectives took him to the station for questioning and that was in the afternoon. He was being interrogated all evening long.
According to your bogus claim, Frazier wouldn't have been interrogated until 10:30 PM and that is blatantly false. He was let go at midnight.
I see now why you usually stick to the conspiracy filled Trump-hating thread. And you apparently can't count either. The assassination occurred at 12:30. 10:30 is not nine hours later. LOL. The fact is that Frazier was not found until about 6PM at the Irving Hospital. He and his sister were interrogated by Fritz around 9PM. These are known as facts which I realize from your endless Trump rants are not things you value.
-
Are you really suggesting that by 9PM that Frazier didn't know Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination because he hadn't been charged at that point? Wow. I've read some kookery but that one is far out. Frazier is sitting in the police station. Oswald's arrest has been widely reported. They have checked his car and home with his cooperation. What does Frazier think they are looking for in his car if he has no idea Oswald is a suspect in the JFK assassination?
Do you understand the difference of a person of interest and a suspect?
Are you really suggesting that by 9PM that Frazier didn't know Oswald was a suspect in the JFK assassination
No, I'm suggesting that Frazier, after his arrest at the hospital at around 6 PM, probably understood that police wanted to talk to him and Oswald as part of their investigation in JFK's murder. Not everybody who is arrested in a murder investigation is automatically a suspect. I don't think Frazier knew exactly what was going on, what Oswald's status was or what the officers were looking for when they searched his car. They may well have only told him it was a routine search. Police officers are not in the habit of providing much information to a detainee.
One thing that's certain IMO is that Frazier, from the moment of his arrest at around 6 PM, had no access to news sources.
But all this is a far cry from your initial claim that Frazier, at 1:30 PM, left the TSBD and went straight to his sister to get their story straight because Frazier somehow knew that Oswald was the suspected assassin. You seem to be shifting the goalposts.
Edit; from the article posted by Bill Chapman;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html
Buell remembers that Oswald had very little to say during the trips that often took less than 30 minutes.
'We would chit chat, but nothing of importance and certainly nothing about politics. That never came up, and Kennedy was never mentioned,' said Buell.
'Oswald was not the most talkative person, and nothing stands out from our conversations.'
Buell said Oswald was 'quiet' during the 20 minute drive and no one mentioned the visit of President Kennedy to Dallas.
<>
Buell, his mind in a whirl from the shocking events, left work and drove to visit his step-father who was in hospital.
Hours later at the hospital he was arrested by police after they were told he gave Oswald a lift to work.
He was questioned for hours as detectives suspected he was involved in an assassination plot. At one point he was even asked to sign a confession admitting his part in the killing.
'I just told them what I knew, and told the truth,' said Buell. 'They kept on asking about Lee and the ride to work. I told them all I knew, but I could see they suspected I was involved.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/6rVbTMT/52-E49-C48-62-DF-4-D9-D-8-EC8-A7-B903-CEA6-C9.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjxyKwFY/Frazier-report.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/v4K4tBy0)
I'm trying to determine the earliest the investigating authorities were round at the Randle house.
The best I can find is the above report stating Rose and Stovall went there after picking him up at Irving PD (around 5:35pm according to the FBI report you posted), searching his car, then going to the house (around 6pm??)
It's interesting to note Rose and Stovall say they got the info about WBF's location from LMR but when did that happen?
-
--------------------------------------
FROM THE GOOD-REASON-FOR-
BUELL-TO-COVER-HIS-ARSE DEPT
--------------------------------------
By PAUL THOMPSON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:30 EDT, 20 November 2015 | UPDATED: 10:39 EDT, 20 November 2015
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html
In the years after the death of Kennedy, Buell said he was shunned by people once they learned of his links to the assassination.
‘I was working as a manager of a clothing store in a job I really enjoyed. One day I was called into the office and told I was being let go. It was because they found out I had given Lee a lift to work on the day Kennedy died. Another time I was at a school reunion and a teacher came up to me and just said: "You should be ashamed of yourself."
'When I asked why she said it was because of Oswald. That really bothered me. To think that people could think I had something to do with the President's death was really awful.'
Buell was so afraid that he might be killed by people seeking revenge for JFK's death that he moved from Dallas, joined the Army and lived in Denver, Colorado and Portland, Oregon..
'I did not want people to know,' he said. 'I didn't do anything wrong but some people would not accept that.
'Some people think I am guilty that I helped Oswald. All I did was give him a ride to work.'
-
--------------------------------------
FROM THE GOOD-REASON-FOR-
BUELL-TO-COVER-HIS-ARSE DEPT
--------------------------------------
Daily Mail
By PAUL THOMPSON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:30 EDT, 20 November 2015 | UPDATED: 10:39 EDT, 20 November 2015
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html
In the years after the death of Kennedy, Buell said he was shunned by people once they learned of his links to the assassination.
‘I was working as a manager of a clothing store in a job I really enjoyed. One day I was called into the office and told I was being let go. It was because they found out I had given Lee a lift to work on the day Kennedy died. Another time I was at a school reunion and a teacher came up to me and just said: "You should be ashamed of yourself."
'When I asked why she said it was because of Oswald. That really bothered me. To think that people could think I had something to do with the President's death was really awful.'
Buell was so afraid that he might be killed by people seeking revenge for JFK's death that he moved from Dallas, joined the Army and lived in Denver, Colorado and Portland, Oregon..
'I did not want people to know,' he said. 'I didn't do anything wrong but some people would not accept that.
'Some people think I am guilty that I helped Oswald. All I did was give him a ride to work.'
--------------------------------------
FROM THE GOOD-REASON-FOR-
BUELL-TO-COVER-HIS-ARSE BS DEPT
--------------------------------------
I fixed it for you. No need to thank me.
-
--------------------------------------
FROM THE GOOD-REASON-FOR-
BUELL-TO-COVER-HIS-ARSE BS DEPT
--------------------------------------
I fixed it for you. No need to thank me.
You fixed it for yourself. And here I thought you didn't care what I said.
Your well-known continuing obsession with me duly noted
-
You fixed it for yourself. And here I thought you didn't care what I said.
Your well-known continuing obsession with me duly noted
And here I thought you didn't care what I said.
I personally don't care, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with your usual BS.
-
And here I thought you didn't care what I said.
I personally don't care, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with your usual BS.
Buell had plenty of reasons to cover his arse.
The proof is in the immediate aftermath.
From his own mouth.
-
Buell had plenty of reasons to cover his arse.
The proof is in the immediate aftermath.
From his own mouth.
You are truly pathetic. Events, caused by some narrow minded people, that happened years later and he couldn't possibly forsee, were somehow the reason for Frazier to cover his arse within hours after the assassination. Yeah right.....
-
In the scenario I'm proposing:
Frazier had no reason to suspect Oswald was carrying a rifle to work that day and accepted the curtain rod story.
After the event he realised it was a rifle and that no-one would buy his "But I thought it was curtain rods" excuse.
On reflection, it was obviously a rifle.
Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone else only Frazier.
It was a totally BS: story.
But Frazier could've only known there was curtain rods in the Paine household because Oswald had told him about them.
And there were two curtain rods.
Only two curtain rods.
And they were both still in the Paine garage after the assassination.
Because Oswald never took any curtain rods with him.
He took a rifle.
And Frazier had to convince everyone that the long package he brought with him that day could not have been a rifle.
Everything else about his story could be exactly as it happened except what the long package looked like.
He had enough time to come up with his story in the missing few hours between him going home after work and Linnie Mae approaching Adamcik outside the Paine house.
-
In the scenario I'm proposing:
Frazier had no reason to suspect Oswald was carrying a rifle to work that day and accepted the curtain rod story.
After the event he realised it was a rifle and that no-one would buy his "But I thought it was curtain rods" excuse.
On reflection, it was obviously a rifle.
Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone else only Frazier.
It was a totally BS: story.
But Frazier could've only known there was curtain rods in the Paine household because Oswald had told him about them.
And there were two curtain rods.
Only two curtain rods.
And they were both still in the Paine garage after the assassination.
Because Oswald never took any curtain rods with him.
He took a rifle.
And Frazier had to convince everyone that the long package he brought with him that day could not have been a rifle.
Everything else about his story could be exactly as it happened except what the long package looked like.
He had enough time to come up with his story in the missing few hours between him going home after work and Linnie Mae approaching Adamcik outside the Paine house.
And Frazier had to convince everyone that the long package he brought with him that day could not have been a rifle.
Everything else about his story could be exactly as it happened except what the long package looked like.
And all he came up with is the curtain rods story that he thought nobody would believe? Huh?
And btw, in your scenario, Frazier must he known or believed that Oswald killed Kennedy before Oswald was even arrested for Tippit's murder or shortly thereafter. That is what you are actually saying, isn't it?
-
You are truly pathetic. Events, caused by some narrow minded people, that happened years later and he couldn't possibly forsee, were somehow the reason for Frazier to cover his arse within hours after the assassination. Yeah right.....
Mr Eyes Wide Shut: What Buell said (in my Daily Mail link) is right in front of you. It demonstrates why anyone in his position would have a damn good reason to cover his flank. No time limit. Only one example necessary for proof-of-concept.
And I said 'a Buell Frazier in CYA mode '. Try to figure out what that means.
-
Mr Eyes Wide Shut: What Buell said (in my Daily Mail link) is right in front of you. It demonstrates why anyone in his position would have a damn could reason to cover his flank. No time limit. Only one example necessary for proof-of-concept.
And I said 'a Buell Frazier in CYA mode '. Try to figure out what that means.
Sorry, can't find my gibberish dictionary
-
And Frazier had to convince everyone that the long package he brought with him that day could not have been a rifle.
Everything else about his story could be exactly as it happened except what the long package looked like.
And all he came up with is the curtain rods story that he thought nobody would believe? Huh?
Frazier didn't come up with the curtain rod story.
Oswald did.
And btw, in your scenario, Frazier must he known or believed that Oswald killed Kennedy before Oswald was even arrested for Tippit's murder or shortly thereafter. That is what you are actually saying, isn't it?
How do you figure that?
Later edit: Frazier would only have felt the need to come up with the story once it was announced Oswald was arrested but once he'd heard the shots came from the TSBD it may well have dawned on him Oswald didn't carry curtain rods to work that morning.
-
Frazier didn't come up with the curtain rod story.
Oswald did.
That's what Frazier said
How do you figure that?
Later edit: Frazier would only have felt the need to come up with the story once it was announced Oswald was arrested but once he'd heard the shots came from the TSBD it may well have dawned on him Oswald didn't carry curtain rods to work that morning.
But the only story he told was the curtain rods story, so how does that make any sense if Oswald came up with that story and Frazier actually didn't believe it?
Btw Frazier left the TSBD before Oswald was arrested and he would have been in Irving by the time news about Oswald's arrest was first on the radio (at 2:40 PM). Frazier's sources of information were very limited from the moment he left the TSBD until he was arrested at the hospital at around 6 PM. So, when and how did he get enough information to connect the dots?
-
Sorry, can't find my gibberish dictionary
Not my bad that your reading comprehension is limited to the point that you have to head for the exit while belching throwaway chickenspombleprofglidnoctobunse cop-outs like 'gibberish'.
-
He is definitely going down as an accessory - the man who drove the assassin and his poorly disguised rifle to the scene of the crime.
So he gets together with Linnie to concoct the curtain rod story - Oswald did indeed have a long package but no way was it long enough to be a rifle. It was definitely curtain rod length just like Oswald said.
In this scenario why mention a package at all?
-
And there were two curtain rods.
Only two curtain rods.
And they were both still in the Paine garage after the assassination.
If that's the case then how were they submitted into evidence 8 days before they were "found" undisturbed in the Paine garage?
-
That's what Frazier said
That is correct
But the only story he told was the curtain rods story, so how does that make any sense if Oswald came up with that story and Frazier actually didn't believe it?
?? Frazier did believe it.
He had absolutely no reason to believe Oswald was lying.
No reason to believe Oswald was bringing a rifle to work.
His trusting nature was taken advantage of.
Btw Frazier left the TSBD before Oswald was arrested and he would have been in Irving by the time news about Oswald's arrest was first on the radio (at 2:40 PM). Frazier's sources of information were very limited from the moment he left the TSBD until he was arrested at the hospital at around 6 PM. So, when and how did he get enough information to connect the dots?
JFK is assassinated by a shot from the TSBD.
Oswald is arrested.
What more information does he need?
It very quickly dawns on Buell that Oswald lied about bringing curtain rods to work.
He'd brought a rifle and Buell quickly put two and two together.
How could he explain away that Oswald had carried a rifle to work that morning and he had done nothing about it.
When Frazier looked back on it, it was obvious it was a rifle.
How could he have accepted it was curtain rods? (because he was a trusting person who had no idea what was happening)
In the report I posted above Frazier is arrested sometime between 5:19 and 5:35.
Using this timeframe, Linnie Mae strolls up to Adamcik to offer the "short-long bag" story sometime between 3:30 and 4:45 (assuming it takes about a half hour for everyone to get back to City Hall).
Frazier had at least one hour to realise what a predicament he was in and to get together with Linnie Mae to come up with the "short-long bag story".
It is actually possible that Frazier was at home when he saw the officers converging on the Paine residence and decided that now was a good time to visit his step-dad.
-
That is correct
?? Frazier did believe it.
He had absolutely no reason to believe Oswald was lying.
No reason to believe Oswald was bringing a rifle to work.
His trusting nature was taken advantage of.
Indeed, so why did you write earlier;
After the event he realised it was a rifle and that no-one would buy his "But I thought it was curtain rods" excuse.
If, as you claim, Frazier thought no-one would buy the curtain rods story, then why would he still tell it and not come up with something else?
JFK is assassinated by a shot from the TSBD.
Oswald is arrested.
What more information does he need?
How does Frazier know so soon that the shots were fired from the TSBD? Btw he testified that he thought they came from the railroad area.
How and when did Frazier find out Oswald was arrested and for what?
It very quickly dawns on Buell that Oswald lied about bringing curtain rods to work.
He'd brought a rifle and Buell quickly put two and two together.
How could he explain away that Oswald had carried a rifle to work that morning and he had done nothing about it.
When Frazier looked back on it, it was obvious it was a rifle.
How could he have accepted it was curtain rods? (because he was a trusting person who had no idea what was happening)
This is all hindsight not supported by the facts or evidence
In the report I posted above Frazier is arrested sometime between 5:19 and 5:35.
Using this timeframe, Linnie Mae strolls up to Adamcik to offer the "short-long bag" story sometime between 3:30 and 4:45 (assuming it takes about a half hour for everyone to get back to City Hall).
In their report, Rose, Stovall and Adamcik gave a later time.
Frazier had at least one hour to realise what a predicament he was in and to get together with Linnie Mae to come up with the "short-long bag story".
Only if he had all the information at that time, which he clearly couldn't have. Oswald was arrested after Frazier left the TSBD. The first broadcast of his arrest was at 2:40 only mentioned that he was arrested in connection with the murder of officer Tippit.
It's highly speculative to assume that Frazier, between his departure from the TSBD and his arrest at the hospital, would somehow have obtained sufficient information to tie Oswald to the Kennedy murder and draw the conclusions you propose. But even if he did, why did he still tell the curtain rods story?
It is actually possible that Frazier was at home when he saw the officers converging on the Paine residence and decided that now was a good time to visit his step-dad.
It's also possible that Frazier wasn't aware of any problem until he was arrested. Speculation isn't getting you far!
-
In this scenario why mention a package at all?
Because Oswald was carrying a package.
Frazier would have to assume other people might have seen him carrying the package (Ruth Paine, Marina, neighbours etc.)
How would it look if Frazier denied seeing a package at all that others had seen Oswald carrying to his car?
Why take the chance of the out-and-out lie that there was no package when there was one.
Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.
-
Because Oswald was carrying a package.
Frazier would have to assume other people might have seen him carrying the package (Ruth Paine, Marina, neighbours etc.)
How would it look if Frazier denied seeing a package at all that others had seen Oswald carrying to his car?
Why take the chance of the out-and-out lie that there was no package when there was one.
Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.
Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.
Indeed. He didn't invent a story and simply told the truth.
I still don't understand how you can claim, on the one hand, that Frazier, at some point early on, understood he could be in trouble and needed to concoct a story with his sister, yet on the other hand confirm that Frazier told investigators exactly what really happened.
There is an obvious contradiction there.
-
If that's the case then how were they submitted into evidence 8 days before they were "found" undisturbed in the Paine garage?
I assume you're talking about this extraordinary document posted by Alan:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/00/u8TYD7U2_o.gif)
For me, the importance of this document is that there could hardly be a clearer example of tampering with the processing of evidence.
I find it hard to believe an honest mistake has led to the same document being given different release dates.
It seems to be a doctored document and, as such, can hardly be viewed as being reliable in any way.
The submitted date (3/15/64) can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The question is - what did the person(s) creating this document hope to achieve?
-
Indeed, so why did you write earlier;
After the event he realised it was a rifle and that no-one would buy his "But I thought it was curtain rods" excuse.
If, as you claim, Frazier thought no-one would buy the curtain rods story, then why would he still tell it and not come up with something else?
How does Frazier know so soon that the shots were fired from the TSBD? Btw he testified that he thought they came from the railroad area.
How and when did Frazier find out Oswald was arrested and for what?
This is all hindsight not supported by the facts or evidence
In their report, Rose, Stovall and Adamcik gave a later time.
Only if he had all the information at that time, which he clearly couldn't have. Oswald was arrested after Frazier left the TSBD. The first broadcast of his arrest was at 2:40 only mentioned that he was arrested in connection with the murder of officer Tippit.
It's highly speculative to assume that Frazier, between his departure from the TSBD and his arrest at the hospital, would somehow have obtained sufficient information to tie Oswald to the Kennedy murder and draw the conclusions you propose. But even if he did, why did he still tell the curtain rods story?
It's also possible that Frazier wasn't aware of any problem until he was arrested. Speculation isn't getting you far!
You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.
1) Oswald asks to be dropped off on Thursday evening to collect some curtain rods:
BWF didn't know there were curtain rods in the Paine garage, that's why he couldn't have made up the curtain rod story. Oswald did know they were in there which is why he made the story up. To have cover for the long package he was bringing to work.
And there was 2 curtain rods in the garage. Ruth Paine had put them there herself.
Oswald didn't need curtain rods. He had perfectly functioning curtain rods in his room.
He never mentioned to his landlady he was going to change the curtain rods.
He never mentioned to Ruth Paine he was going to take the curtain rods.
The only person he mentioned curtain rods to was Frazier.
And the 2 curtain rods were still there after the assassination. Because Oswald never took them.
2) Oswald shows up the next morning with a long package:
In the long package is the rifle Marina testified to seeing in the tied-up blanket in the garage which was no longer there when the police searched the garage later that day.
BWF asks what the package is and Oswald reminds him of the curtain rods.
BWF has absolutely no reason to doubt him and accepts the story.
After the assassination there is a roll call in the TSBD after which BWF returns home.
Frazier is adamant he was in the hospital only a short time (15 - 20 mins at the most) before he was arrested.
Let's say it takes 15 mins to drive from the house he was staying to where his step-dad was (probably shorter)
In the report I posted we can assume BWF was arrested approximately 5:30pm which means he could have been in his house until as late as 4:45pm watching events unfold on the TV. It's possible he saw the police activity at the Paine house before heading off.
As you point out, Rose and Stovall place his arrest later in the day which means he could have left the house even later.
By 4:45pm anyone watching the TV knows that the shots that killed JFK came from the TSBD and that Oswald, a TSBD employee, had been arrested.
Buell realises that the long package contained a rifle and not curtain rods.
He realises that he has been duped.
He realises that, through no fault of his own, he is an accomplice in the murder of the President.
He realises that if he describes the package he actually saw no-one will believe he thought they were curtain rods.
He can't say there was no package because if he gets caught out blatantly lying he will be in real trouble.
All he can do is diminish the size of the package and make out he never really paid any attention to it as Oswald explained they were curtain rods.
He's done nothing wrong.
Oswald denies bringing curtain rods with him because he knows they are still back at the garage.
-
You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.
1) Oswald asks to be dropped off on Thursday evening to collect some curtain rods:
BWF didn't know there were curtain rods in the Paine garage, that's why he couldn't have made up the curtain rod story. Oswald did know they were in there which is why he made the story up. To have cover for the long package he was bringing to work.
And there was 2 curtain rods in the garage. Ruth Paine had put them there herself.
Oswald didn't need curtain rods. He had perfectly functioning curtain rods in his room.
He never mentioned to his landlady he was going to change the curtain rods.
He never mentioned to Ruth Paine he was going to take the curtain rods.
The only person he mentioned curtain rods to was Frazier.
And the 2 curtain rods were still there after the assassination. Because Oswald never took them.
2) Oswald shows up the next morning with a long package:
In the long package is the rifle Marina testified to seeing in the tied-up blanket in the garage which was no longer there when the police searched the garage later that day.
BWF asks what the package is and Oswald reminds him of the curtain rods.
BWF has absolutely no reason to doubt him and accepts the story.
After the assassination there is a roll call in the TSBD after which BWF returns home.
Frazier is adamant he was in the hospital only a short time (15 - 20 mins at the most) before he was arrested.
Let's say it takes 15 mins to drive from the house he was staying to where his step-dad was (probably shorter)
In the report I posted we can assume BWF was arrested approximately 5:30pm which means he could have been in his house until as late as 4:45pm watching events unfold on the TV. It's possible he saw the police activity at the Paine house before heading off.
As you point out, Rose and Stovall place his arrest later in the day which means he could have left the house even later.
By 4:45pm anyone watching the TV knows that the shots that killed JFK came from the TSBD and that Oswald, a TSBD employee, had been arrested.
Buell realises that the long package contained a rifle and not curtain rods.
He realises that he has been duped.
He realises that, through no fault of his own, he is an accomplice in the murder of the President.
He realises that if he describes the package he actually saw no-one will believe he thought they were curtain rods.
He can't say there was no package because if he gets caught out blatantly lying he will be in real trouble.
All he can do is diminish the size of the package and make out he never really paid any attention to it as Oswald explained they were curtain rods.
He's done nothing wrong.
Oswald denies bringing curtain rods with him because he knows they are still back at the garage.
You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.
No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.
In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.
Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.
-
I assume you're talking about this extraordinary document posted by Alan:
For me, the importance of this document is that there could hardly be a clearer example of tampering with the processing of evidence.
I find it hard to believe an honest mistake has led to the same document being given different release dates.
It seems to be a doctored document and, as such, can hardly be viewed as being reliable in any way.
The submitted date (3/15/64) can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The question is - what did the person(s) creating this document hope to achieve?
This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.
The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.
There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.
To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.
-
Frazier isn't inventing the package.
He isn't inventing he was told they were curtain rods.
Indeed. He didn't invent a story and simply told the truth.
I still don't understand how you can claim, on the one hand, that Frazier, at some point early on, understood he could be in trouble and needed to concoct a story with his sister, yet on the other hand confirm that Oswald told investigators exactly what really happened.
There is an obvious contradiction there.
What did he have to worry about? LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon. Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it. Should Spangler have worried? I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods. But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him. That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious. He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss. How was he to know? If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.
-
What did he have to worry about? LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon. Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it. Should Spangler have worried? I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods. But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him. That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious. He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss. How was he to know? If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.
So many words and so little significant information. The bottom line is that Frazier told the DPD he saw Oswald carry a bag that fitted between the cup of his hand and under his armpit and that Oswald had told him it contained curtain rods.
Shortly before midnight Frazier was polygraphed by Detective R.D. Lewis. While being polygraphed he told the same story and was shown the bag found at the TSBD which he denied was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph result was that Frazier was being truthful and he was released from custody.
You can speculate, in your usual selfserving way, as much as you want, but the facts are that Frazier simply told DPD what happened and passed a polygraph while doing it.
Had he known everything you guys claim he knew and had he been really concerned he might have tried to change his story to minimize his involvement, but as it stands he just told the DPD what really happened. Go figure!
-
The first mention of a bag/package arises between Adamcik and LMR. Apparently she knows about the curtain rods but fails to mention them. For some reason she was suspicious. The curtain rods are first mentioned by Frazier that evening when asked about Oswald carrying a package.
-
You seem to be deliberately complicating the scenario I'm proposing.
Not really. The scenario doesn't make any sense.
The scenario, which is obviously speculation, is meant to account for as many factors as possible relating to the curtain rod affair.
The point is that Frazier only alters one aspect of what actually happened - the size of the bag. That's all.
Everything else happened as he testified.
No. Frazier actually doesn't change anything. He tells exactly what happened, that he saw Oswald carry a bag, that he was told it contained curtain rods and that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit.
In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story.
Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one.
"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."
I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.
"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."
Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.
Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.
The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.
The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?
-
"In other words, even if your speculation is true, that Frazier at some point somehow started to believe that Oswald had actually brought a broken down rifle of 34,8" in that paper bag (which Frazier denies to this day), it did not motivate him to change anything in his story."
I'm not saying Oswald brought a "broken down rifle" in the bag. That's your addition.
He brought a fully assembled rifle.
That's what motivated Frazier to change his story.
That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?
"Your entire convoluted theory seems to have as it's sole purpose that Frazier at some point knew or understood that Oswald had brought a rifle to work that Friday. It's not only highly speculative but it's also something that Frazier has denied from day one."
Frazier changed one small detail in his story - the length of the long package Oswald brought with him.
You may find this "convoluted" but I don't. I find it incredibly easy to understand.
And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?
Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day. But he did bring a long package.
How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?
The 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage were still there after the assassination.
And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.
The rifle Marina saw in the blanket was gone.
How do you explain all this?
One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.
You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.
-
This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.
The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.
There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.
To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.
If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?
-
That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?
Martin, I'm proposing a scenario to account for various aspects of the curtain rod story.
I'm speculating. Just trying to come up with a scenario that accounts for the things we do know about this aspect of the case.
I'm pretty sure I've made that clear.
Your use of the word "selfserving" seems really defensive.
I'm just playing with possibilities.
And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?
Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.
How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?
Again, really defensive.
Why do you have to turn it into me trying to read Oswald's mind?
Oswald didn't need curtain rods because he had a perfectly fine set of curtain rods already in his room.
He didn't ever mention to his Earlene Roberts he ever had a problem with them or wanted to change them.
He didn't mention to Ruth Paine he wanted to use the ones in the garage.
I doubt he'd just walk off with property that wasn't his.
It's not a mystery and doesn't require mind-reading or anything like that.
And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.
Oswald was carrying round curtain rods with him? Unbeknownst to Marina?
I get the impression Oswald was a "stripped down" kind of guy who travelled light. I find it unlikely he is carting round his own, personal curtain rods with him. It seems like a "luxury" possession.
I don't think I'll be taking that suggestion too seriously.
But you're right - there does have to be an explanation for the DPD document.
One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.
If Marina saw a rifle in the specially prepared blanket and it was missing at the time of the assassination I'm going to play the odds.
I'm not saying for a fact that's what happened.
I'm speculating about a scenario that explains things like Marina's statement about a rifle being in the blanket, tied together to make a covering that would nicely contain a rifle which was the missing on the day of the assassination.
Your proposal of multiple rifles doesn't wash. Like your suggestion of Oswald's "travel rods".
I'm trying to simplify things.
You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.
What factual statements am I making?
As I've said numerous times - I'm proposing a scenario. That's all. It's nothing personal. Nothing "self-serving".
-
If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?
If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.
There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.
Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?
I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.
-
If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.
I totally agree. Just because somebody doesn't understand something, that doesn't make that thing suspicious.
But that's not what's going on.
I understand that the part of the document that is in the official record has been radically, and deliberately altered.
That's what makes it suspicious.
That's not very difficult to understand. Is it?
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.
There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.
Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
That's the important part. That's what casts a shadow over the whole document. Your "logic" has to include this fact.
Your confidence in this document is misplaced (IMO)
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.
It's not my claim though. Is it.
Ruth Paine, the woman who wrapped the curtain rods and put them on the shelf states there were only two.
You ignore this piece of key evidence. I do not.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this testimony casts even more doubt over the dubious DPD document.
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?
I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.
"..nor do I like to speculate."
"Oswald's travel rods" don't come under the banner 'speculation'?
Really?
We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree over a few things.
There is no reason I can see for Oswald to take curtain rods with him that day. I can't make any kind of reasonable case to support the assumption he takes them.
He doesn't need them.
He never mentions them to Roberts.
He never mentions them to Paine.
But he does to Frazier.
-
Because Oswald was carrying a package.
Frazier would have to assume other people might have seen him carrying the package (Ruth Paine, Marina, neighbours etc.)
How would it look if Frazier denied seeing a package at all that others had seen Oswald carrying to his car?
All he would have to say is that he never saw any package. How would they prove differently? The Paine house wasn't close enough to the Randle house for Ruth or Marina to have seen him go to Frazier's car anyway (unless they followed him). It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package.
-
What did he have to worry about? LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon. Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it. Should Spangler have worried? I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods. But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him. That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious. He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss. How was he to know? If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.
Last time I checked, "not being aware of what was happening" is not a crime.
-
And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?
Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.
How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?
-
How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?
That one threw me too ;)
-
Polygraph-testing remains controversial to this day: For example, an honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.
Buell barely had a pulse, FFS
Not one of the most excitable people in town.
-
All he would have to say is that he never saw any package. How would they prove differently? The Paine house wasn't close enough to the Randle house for Ruth or Marina to have seen him go to Frazier's car anyway (unless they followed him). It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package.
So, Oswald shows up with a long package.
Later that day the world hears that he's shot the President.
Ruth and Marina tell the police he left that morning to walk half a block to the Randle house with a long package.
One of the neighbours notices a man putting a long package into a car across the street.
But Frazier tells the police there was no long package.
What would the police think in this scenario?
Might they think BWF was lying?
By shortening the length of the bag BWF can be accused of being 'mistaken', that's not a crime.
But lying about there being no package? That is a crime.
I'm surprised you don't see the difference.
"It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package."
It makes no sense to risk becoming an accessory to he murder of the President.
Why on earth would it even cross his mind to do such a thing?
I know it's only a proposed scenario but I'm trying to keep it realistic John.
Do you really think there might be a scenario where Frazier decides to take that kind of chance?
I certainly don't.
-
Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.
How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?
You must excuse me John.
I didn't realise the questions Frazier was asked during his polygraph were public knowledge.
I'm sure I read somewhere that they weren't available but they must be because you are such a stickler for having your details right and you know so much about the case.
Please direct me to the transcript of Frazier's polygraph and I'll most certainly retract that point.
-
That one threw me too ;)
Wow,
You knew about the transcript of Frazier's polygraph as well Jerry.
I feel so stupid.
I must take more care in future.
-
You must excuse me John.
I didn't realise the questions Frazier was asked during his polygraph were public knowledge.
I'm sure I read somewhere that they weren't available but they must be because you are such a stickler for having your details right and you know so much about the case.
Please direct me to the transcript of Frazier's polygraph and I'll most certainly retract that point.
We don't need to know the questions Frazier was asked during his polygraph to know what he told them. His affidavit, his testimony, his statements to investigators are all on record and he tells them the same things over and over again. If he had told them something different during his polygraph we would have known it.
But, although there is no transcript (and you know it!), there is an FB 302 report by FBI Vincent Drain, dated 1 December 1963 that details what Oswald told Detectives Lewis and Day about the bag during the polygraph.
And btw, when you ask for a transcript and pretend not to know what Frazier said during the polygraph, how have you been able to determine that he told the truth?
-
There is no reason I can see for Oswald to take curtain rods with him that day. I can't make any kind of reasonable case to support the assumption he takes them.
He doesn't need them.
He never mentions them to Roberts.
He never mentions them to Paine.
But he does to Frazier.
According to Frazier. Not fact. Linnie May mentioned nothing about them to Adamcik. Adamcik doesn’t even mention their discussion in his report of events that afternoon. Yet the Thursday visit by Oswald to Irving was a hot topic of discussion between brother and sister that afternoon. By Friday morning short term memory loss hits both.
-
We don't need to know the questions Frazier was asked during his polygraph to know what he told them. His affidavit, his testimony, his statements to investigators are all on record and he tells them the same things over and over again. If he had told them something different during his polygraph we would have known it.
But, although there is no transcript (and you know it!), there is an FB 302 report by FBI Vincent Drain, dated 1 December 1963 that details what Oswald told Detectives Lewis and Day about the bag during the polygraph.
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
There only real concern would probably be whether Frazier was involved in some way.
He wasn't.
He really did believe there were curtain rods in the bag. That's the truth.
He really wasn't involved in any way. That's the truth.
And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".
If the authorities think he's mistaken over one detail that's not a crime.
If they think he's lying to them, that's a different ball game.
They obviously believe he is being truthful.
And btw, when you ask for a transcript and pretend not to know what Frazier said during the polygraph, how have you been able to determine that he told the truth?
Because the authorities obviously believed he was being truthful.
And I imagine that belief didn't come easy.
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not.
They believed he thought it was curtain rods in the bag.
They believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
-
Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.
How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?
The Lie detector test that they gave Frazier was a sham. A lie detector test under the conditions that they administered the test would have proved nothing. Frazier was way to nervous and upset.......
-
That one threw me too ;)
That doesn't surprise me. This is simple. Frazier is facing both potential legal and much more likely public judgment of his conduct. He does not want to be forever known as the guy who should have been suspicious of the guy who assassinated the president and did nothing about it. An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.
-
According to Frazier. Not fact. Linnie May mentioned nothing about them to Adamcik. Adamcik doesn’t even mention their discussion in his report of events that afternoon. Yet the Thursday visit by Oswald to Irving was a hot topic of discussion between brother and sister that afternoon. By Friday morning short term memory loss hits both.
A lot of things are like that Colin.
Marina says she sees a rifle in the blanket. It's not a fact she did, it's just "according to Marina".
Ruth Paine is adamant there was just two curtain rods. It's not a fact there were, it's just "according to Ruth Paine".
I'm just proposing a scenario that tries to cover as many of these "according to" statements as possible.
It's speculation and assumption.
I'm assuming Marina did see a rifle. I'm assuming there were only two curtain rods etc. based on various testimonies.
In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
I have to assume it's because Oswald told him about them. Otherwise it's a wildly lucky guess.
-
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
There only real concern would probably be whether Frazier was involved in some way.
He wasn't.
He really did believe there were curtain rods in the bag. That's the truth.
He really wasn't involved in any way. That's the truth.
And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".
If the authorities think he's mistaken over one detail that's not a crime.
If they think he's lying to them, that's a different ball game.
They obviously believe he is being truthful.
Because the authorities obviously believed he was being truthful.
And I imagine that belief didn't come easy.
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not.
They believed he thought it was curtain rods in the bag.
They believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Sorry, but this is total BS. I'm not sure which report you are looking at but when Detective Lewis, who was the DPD polygraph operator, takes a polygraph, who are you to say that it wasn't a real polygraph?
The Drain FD 302 only concentrates on the paper bag and not on the actual polygraph
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
Again, how in the world would you even know what questions were asked? The answer is that you don't and you are just arguing for argument's sake.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
Really? You probably missed that in the Drain FD 302 it says; "and while he was running the polygraph, Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case".
Also, in a Supplementary Offense Report, dated 11/22/63 Detectives Rose and Stovall state;
"Frazier was interrogated and run on the polygraph with negative results"
So, let me guess, Rose and Stovall also lied? Right?
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
And what makes you think that they just chatted away during the polygraph? Just because Drain reports on what Lewis and Day said about how Frazier reacted to the bag they showed him? Really?
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
Really? By not giving him a real polygraph? Are you serious?
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
Good grief. They believed he was truthful because the polygraph indicated that.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
No. The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind.
The DPD identification document is "suspicious", the polygraph wasn't "real", Frazier told the truth but lied about the size of the bag and so on. Yeah right......
-
This is simple. .. An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.
"Simple"?
If everything is so simple then maybe you can simply post the printed results and subsequent report on this Frazier polygraph[?] I've never seen them. Or perhaps Dan O'meara will.
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f78/19/52/40/87/arrb_p10.jpg)
-
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Sorry, but this is total BS. I'm not sure which report you are looking at but when Detective Lewis, who was the DPD polygraph operator, takes a polygraph, who are you to say that it wasn't a real polygraph?
The Drain FD 302 only concentrates on the paper bag and not on the actual polygraph
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
Again, how in the world would you even know what questions were asked? The answer is that you don't and you are just arguing for argument's sake.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
Really? You probably missed that in the Drain FD 302 it says; "and while he was running the polygraph, Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case".
Also, in a Supplementary Offense Report, dated 11/22/63 Detectives Rose and Stovall state;
"Frazier was interrogated and run on the polygraph with negative results"
So, let me guess, Rose and Stovall also lied? Right?
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
And what makes you think that they just chatted away during the polygraph? Just because Drain reports on what Lewis and Day said about how Frazier reacted to the bag they showed him? Really?
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
Really? By not giving him a real polygraph? Are you serious?
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
Good grief. They believed he was truthful because the polygraph indicated that.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
No. The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind.
The DPD identification document is "suspicious", the polygraph wasn't "real", Frazier told the truth but lied about the size of the bag and so on. Yeah right......
Oh boy.
You seem a bit hot under the collar there Martin.
I get the impression you don't like your own scenario questioned (whatever that is).
Like I say, I'm just playing with possibilities, trying to find the best fit.
"...while he was running the polygraph,
Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown
heavy paper gun case...Frazier said that it
was possible that this was the case, but he did not think
that it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper
that OSWALD had when he rode to work with him that
morning was about two feet long."
To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?
Doesn't the DPD document seem "suspicious" to you in any way?
You even said yourself:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
"The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever..."
The assumption I'm making - that BWF downplayed the size of the bag Oswald brought to work with him that morning is based on the following evidence:
Oswald broke his usual routine, went to the Paine house the night before the assassination to collect curtain rods - Frazier's testimony
There were two curtain rods in the Paine garage - Ruth Paine's testimony
There was a rifle in a blanket in the garage - Marina's testimony
Oswald showed up at the Randle house with a long package - BWF and LMR testimony
Oswald reminded Frazier they were curtain rods - Frazier testimony
Oswald never mentioned needing curtain rods to Ruth Paine, Marina or Earlene Roberts.
The two curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination - Ruth Paine testimony
The rifle was missing after the assassination - various police testimonies
The scenario I'm proposing covers all these bits of testimony.
Does yours?
"...which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind."
Propose a better scenario and change my mind.
PS: Even if it includes "Oswald's travel rods"
-
Oswald had no need for curtain rods.
You don't know that
He never mentioned curtain rods to anyone other than Frazier.
He didn't bring curtain rods with him that day.
Sorry, Mr O'Meara, you don't get to claim this as fact while failing (as you are doing!) to account for the fact that two curtain rods were formally submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64----------and formally released on 3/24/64.
By the way! Your little gambit of pointing to the variant version (with release date of 3/26/64) as some sort of mitigation (from a WC apologist point of view) of the disaster which this document constitutes is just plain silly.
Thumb1:
-
That doesn't surprise me. This is simple. Frazier is facing both potential legal and much more likely public judgment of his conduct. He does not want to be forever known as the guy who should have been suspicious of the guy who assassinated the president and did nothing about it. An obvious point unless you believe that he did want to be blamed by the public for being a clueless numbskull.
Have you gotten any further in explaining away the Crime Scene Search Document, Mr Smith? As in, further than 'Ok, so they got the submission date wrong... and the release date... but hey, no biggie'?
Thumb1:
-
You don't know that
I'm basing that assumption on the following images of Oswald's room and the fact he never mentioned needing curtain rods to his housekeeper or Mrs Paine, from whom he is supposed to have just taken the rods
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6gRmvWW/Screenshot-70.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yQJT3y1/Screenshot-75.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Sorry, Mr O'Meara, you don't get to claim this as fact while failing (as you are doing!) to account for the fact that two curtain rods were formally submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64----------and formally released on 3/24/64.
Read my recent posts Alan.
I'm not claiming anything as a fact, unlike yourself.
Ruth Paine's testimony and the record of the "official" removal of the rods from the Paine garage completely undermine the dubious DPD document.
By the way! Your little gambit of pointing to the variant version (with release date of 3/26/64) as some sort of mitigation (from a WC apologist point of view) of the disaster which this document constitutes is just plain silly.
Pointing out the seemingly deliberate falsification of the document is a "gambit"? Listen to yourself.
"WC apologist"?? I can assure you I'm no WC apologist.
"disaster"?? Please elaborate on what you mean here.
It's "silly" to point out the clearly dubious nature of the DPD document? I don't think so Alan. I think it's a bit more than silly to take that document at face value, as you seem to do.
-
Oh boy.
You seem a bit hot under the collar there Martin.
I get the impression you don't like your own scenario questioned (whatever that is).
Like I say, I'm just playing with possibilities, trying to find the best fit.
"...while he was running the polygraph,
Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown
heavy paper gun case...Frazier said that it
was possible that this was the case, but he did not think
that it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper
that OSWALD had when he rode to work with him that
morning was about two feet long."
To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?
Doesn't the DPD document seem "suspicious" to you in any way?
You even said yourself:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
"The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever..."
The assumption I'm making - that BWF downplayed the size of the bag Oswald brought to work with him that morning is based on the following evidence:
Oswald broke his usual routine, went to the Paine house the night before the assassination to collect curtain rods - Frazier's testimony
There were two curtain rods in the Paine garage - Ruth Paine's testimony
There was a rifle in a blanket in the garage - Marina's testimony
Oswald showed up at the Randle house with a long package - BWF and LMR testimony
Oswald reminded Frazier they were curtain rods - Frazier testimony
Oswald never mentioned needing curtain rods to Ruth Paine, Marina or Earlene Roberts.
The two curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination - Ruth Paine testimony
The rifle was missing after the assassination - various police testimonies
The scenario I'm proposing covers all these bits of testimony.
Does yours?
"...which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind."
Propose a better scenario and change my mind.
PS: Even if it includes "Oswald's travel rods"
Propose a better scenario and change my mind.
It's pretty obvious there is no changing your mind. I know when I am wasting my time, so I'll pass.
-
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
There only real concern would probably be whether Frazier was involved in some way.
He wasn't.
He really did believe there were curtain rods in the bag. That's the truth.
He really wasn't involved in any way. That's the truth.
And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".
If the authorities think he's mistaken over one detail that's not a crime.
If they think he's lying to them, that's a different ball game.
They obviously believe he is being truthful.
Because the authorities obviously believed he was being truthful.
And I imagine that belief didn't come easy.
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not.
They believed he thought it was curtain rods in the bag.
They believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
"I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not."
They kept asking him the same questions over and over which is the way to catch people in a lie. If you watch The First 48, the perps keep changing their answers partly because they forget what they said earlier.
You don't know about this?
By PAUL THOMPSON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:30 EDT, 20 November 2015 | UPDATED: 10:39 EDT, 20 November 2015
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html
[EXCERPT]
"Hours later at the hospital he was arrested by police after they were told he gave Oswald a lift to work. He was questioned for hours as detectives suspected he was involved in an assassination plot. At one point he was even asked to sign a confession admitting his part in the killing."
'I just told them what I knew, and told the truth,' said Buell. 'They kept on asking about Lee and the ride to work. I told them all I knew, but I could see they suspected I was involved.
'I couldn't believe I was being asked about the assassination of the President. I was just a simple country boy and it was just a nightmare.
'I kept on telling the police I did not know anything. They kept on asking me the same questions.
'I told them what I knew about Lee, but that wasn't very much. I gave him a lift to work but we did not socialize after work. I never saw him outside of work.
'It was the truth, but they did not believe me and were convinced I was involved.'
--Buell Frazier
-
I'm basing that assumption on the following images of Oswald's room and the fact he never mentioned needing curtain rods to his housekeeper or Mrs Paine, from whom he is supposed to have just taken the rods
Like I say, you don't know that Mr Oswald had no need to bring curtain rods to work that day
Read my recent posts Alan.
I'm not claiming anything as a fact, unlike yourself.
Ruth Paine's testimony and the record of the "official" removal of the rods from the Paine garage completely undermine the dubious DPD document.
It's quite the other way around actually. That document makes a farce of Ms Paine's 3/23/64 testimony taking at Irving.
Pointing out the seemingly deliberate falsification of the document is a "gambit"? Listen to yourself.
"WC apologist"?? I can assure you I'm no WC apologist.
"disaster"?? Please elaborate on what you mean here.
It's "silly" to point out the clearly dubious nature of the DPD document? I don't think so Alan. I think it's a bit more than silly to take that document at face value, as you seem to do.
As the person who first pointed out the release dates anomaly between the original version and the version that went into the Warren volumes, I can assure you it's not silly to draw attention to it. But that's not your game, is it, Mr O'Meara? No, your game is to dub the document as 'dubious'/'not reliable' purely in order to neutralize the very real problem it poses to the official claim that no curtain rods were found in the Depository building. Straight out of the McAdams playbook
-
I'm assuming there were only two curtain rods etc. based on various testimonies.
If there had been two curtain rods in the garage prior to the assassination, and these same two curtain rods were still there after the assassination, don't you find it just a little bit odd that not a single report (DPD, FBI, SS) makes mention of this fact prior to Ms Paine's March testimony? You seriously think no one thought to follow up this absolutely critical question?
In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
I have to assume it's because Oswald told him about them.
Why on earth would Mr Oswald have told him about them?
Otherwise it's a wildly lucky guess.
Here's another wildly lucky guess: Mr Frazier's size estimate for the paper bag was within one half of an inch of the length of the curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage. You think Mr Oswald told him that as well?
-
Polygraph-testing remains controversial to this day: For example, an honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.
Buell barely had a pulse, FFS
Not one of the most excitable people in town.
And you know this how? Chapman Fabrications anyone?
-
So, Oswald shows up with a long package.
Later that day the world hears that he's shot the President.
Ruth and Marina tell the police he left that morning to walk half a block to the Randle house with a long package.
One of the neighbours notices a man putting a long package into a car across the street.
But Frazier tells the police there was no long package.
What would the police think in this scenario?
Might they think BWF was lying?
They might if there was anybody who could corroborate that Buell ever saw a package. But in this proposed scenario none of the people ever saw Buell seeing a package. He was inside the house at the time.
By shortening the length of the bag BWF can be accused of being 'mistaken', that's not a crime.
But lying about there being no package? That is a crime.
Maybe under oath, but not under interrogation. If they can't prove that he's lying about the length, they certainly can't prove he ever saw a package either.
-
The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning - the length of the bag.
It boggles my mind that you think a police department that arrested a man for murder with zero probable cause would step back and say "oh, we can't accuse this man as being an accessory because he said he saw a different bag that was shorter". Really? Even so, they still tried to force him to sign a confession with no evidence.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
He could be honest about that too because he's innocent.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
Lots of people are 100% certain about things that they have no evidence of.
And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".
But he would think he could get away with "the bag was only 2 feet long"?
-
In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
Hell, how would Oswald know there were extra curtain rods in the Paine household?
-
The assumption I'm making - that BWF downplayed the size of the bag Oswald brought to work with him that morning is based on the following evidence:
Oswald broke his usual routine, went to the Paine house the night before the assassination to collect curtain rods - Frazier's testimony
There were two curtain rods in the Paine garage - Ruth Paine's testimony
There was a rifle in a blanket in the garage - Marina's testimony
Oswald showed up at the Randle house with a long package - BWF and LMR testimony
Oswald reminded Frazier they were curtain rods - Frazier testimony
Oswald never mentioned needing curtain rods to Ruth Paine, Marina or Earlene Roberts.
The two curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination - Ruth Paine testimony
The rifle was missing after the assassination - various police testimonies
Things your scenario doesn't account for:
- you don't know there was a rifle in the garage on Thursday either (much less that rifle). All you know is that 6 weeks earlier Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
- Neither Marina or Ruth saw Lee go into the garage that night or the next morning. And he went to bed before they did.
- Neither Marina or Ruth saw Lee with a homemade paper bag or a long package.
- Marina said that Lee had a small package with his lunch when he left that morning.
Propose a better scenario and change my mind.
Here's a better scenario: whatever was in the bag that Frazier saw, it wasn't the CE139 rifle.
-
Of all the dishonest contrarian clams the one that takes the cake is the suggestion that there is any doubt about Marina seeing Oswald's rifle in the Paine's garage. Marina responds to dozens of WC and HSCA questions relating to the "rifle." Her answers specify that she is discussing a "rifle." When the police come on 11.22 and ask about a rifle, Marina directs them to the blanket. In one answer to a question relating to the "rifle," however, she describes seeing the wooden part of its stock. Which, of course, Oswald's rifle has. But CTers cling to this straw in desperation to suggest that she just assumed or thought that the wooden stock of a rifle was attached to a rifle! And therefore there is somehow doubt that Oswald kept his rifle in the garage. A completely dishonest distortion of Marina's testimony. Never once when being asked about the "rifle" does she indicate there is any doubt that the object in the blanket is a rifle. The questions she is asked refer to a "rifle." But we are supposed to doubt that Marina confirmed Oswald kept a rifle in that blanket? And Marina has never said otherwise to correct that impression in 50 plus years? Unreal.
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall going in that garage from time to time when you lived with the Paines?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes.
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall seeing where his rifle was located? In other words, did you know where it was?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes, I did.
Mr. McDONALD - Where was it?
Mrs. PORTER - In the garage.
-
Of all the dishonest contrarian clams the one that takes the cake is the suggestion that there is any doubt about Marina seeing Oswald's rifle in the Paine's garage. Marina responds to dozens of WC and HSCA questions relating to the "rifle." Her answers specify that she is discussing a "rifle." When the police come on 11.22 and ask about a rifle, Marina directs them to the blanket. In one answer to a question relating to the "rifle," however, she describes seeing the wooden part of its stock. Which, of course, Oswald's rifle has. But CTers cling to this straw in desperation to suggest that she just assumed or thought that the wooden stock of a rifle was attached to a rifle! And therefore there is somehow doubt that Oswald kept his rifle in the garage. A completely dishonest distortion of Marina's testimony. Never once when being asked about the "rifle" does she indicate there is any doubt that the object in the blanket is a rifle. The questions she is asked refer to a "rifle." But we are supposed to doubt that Marina confirmed Oswald kept a rifle in that blanket? And Marina has never said otherwise to correct that impression in 50 plus years? Unreal.
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall going in that garage from time to time when you lived with the Paines?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes.
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall seeing where his rifle was located? In other words, did you know where it was?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes, I did.
Mr. McDONALD - Where was it?
Mrs. PORTER - In the garage.
Friends, a good rule in life is to always ask yourself: What is the LNer leaving out?
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall going in that garage from time to time when you lived with the Paines?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes.
Mr. McDONALD - And do you recall seeing where his rifle was located? In other words, did you know where it was?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes, I did.
Mr. McDONALD - Where was it?
Mrs. PORTER - In the garage.
Mr. McDONALD - Where in the garage?
Mrs. PORTER - I think it was wrapped in a blanket.
Mr. McDONALD - And where was this blanket? In other words, was it in plain view? Was it in a corner?
Mrs. PORTER - NO, it was between boxes I think. I mean that is how I remember it now.
Mr. McDONALD - Did you ever see it unwrapped? Did you ever see the gun when you were at Ruth Paine's? Did you ever see the rifle taken outside of the blanket?
Mrs. PORTER - No.
Mr. McDONALD - Was it ever exposed?
Mrs. PORTER - No.
-
Things your scenario doesn't account for:
- you don't know there was a rifle in the garage on Thursday either (much less that rifle). All you know is that 6 weeks earlier Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
- Neither Marina or Ruth saw Lee go into the garage that night or the next morning. And he went to bed before they did.
- Neither Marina or Ruth saw Lee with a homemade paper bag or a long package.
- Marina said that Lee had a small package with his lunch when he left that morning.
Here's a better scenario: whatever was in the bag that Frazier saw, it wasn't the CE139 rifle.
The "scenario" that Dan is proposing is basically the same circumstantial scenario that the WC told us.
He can't explain the DPD identification bureau document, showing SSA Howlett presenting curtain rods for fingerprinting on 03/15/64 and collecting them on the 24th (1 day after 2 sets were recovered in Ruth Paine's garage), which clearly implies a third set, so he dismisses it as "suspicious"
He can't explain, during his polygraph, Frazier dismissing the TSBD bag as not the one he saw Oswald carry, so he simply calls the polygraph fake.
I've said it before, if you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic LN!
-
And you know this how? Chapman Fabrications anyone?
The guy looks like a nap waiting to happen.
-
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):
1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.
Why would Oswald deny this? If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.
2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?
What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.
3) Why did Oswald leave the curtain rods at work when he left?
If Oswald is just an innocent guy in no rush to get away, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him when he left on Friday? He's made a trip especially to collect them on Thursday then simply walked off without them on Friday. This is easily explained if there were never any curtain rods in the first place.
4) Ruth Paine testifies on more than one occasion that there were just two curtain rods (which she had wrapped and placed on the shelf herself). She testified that this was the case at the WC hearings and the 1986 assassination "docu-trial":
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in
the garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:
Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
6) There is, of course, Marina Oswald's extensive testimony outlining Oswald's ownership and use of a rifle. Of interest is the discovery of the rifle in the Paine garage:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
Marina confirms it was the same blanket discovered during the initial search of the garage on the day of the assassination:
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
The blanket was folded, rolled and tied with twine to form a container for the rifle. When discovered, Guy Rose stated he could still see the outline of the rifle .
So the curtain rods were still in the garage but the rifle was gone.
7) When asked why she thought Oswald showed up on the Thursday, Marina stated it was because he wanted to "make his peace" with her. As with the curtain rod excuse given to Frazier, this could have waited until Friday. Marina reveals that Oswald wanted to reunite with Marina and the children as soon as possible:
"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 would rent a apartment "tomorrow" if she wanted it. He could hardly bring his family back to the cubby-hole he was living in and it seems he wanted to find somewhere for the family to live together "tomorrow". Hardly a man in need of sprucing up his existing room with some curtain rods.
8) No need for curtain rods
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jnh6D7T5/Oswald-s-room.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yQJT3y1/Screenshot-75.png) (https://postimages.org/)
He mentioned nothing about needing them to Ruth Paine, who he supposedly just took them from, Mrs Roberts, the housekeeper where he lived or the Johnsons, the owners of the house:
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.
On one side is a large conspiracy involving Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Counsel Jenner, Agent Howlett and probably some of the officers who first searched the garage.
On the other side is a scared 19 year old boy who trusted his "friend".
I know which I find more likely.
-
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):
1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.
Why would Oswald deny this? If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.
2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?
What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.
3) Why did Oswald leave the curtain rods at work when he left?
If Oswald is just an innocent guy in no rush to get away, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him when he left on Friday? He's made a trip especially to collect them on Thursday then simply walked off without them on Friday. This is easily explained if there were never any curtain rods in the first place.
4) Ruth Paine testifies on more than one occasion that there were just two curtain rods (which she had wrapped and placed on the shelf herself). She testified that this was the case at the WC hearings and the 1986 assassination "docu-trial":
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in
the garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:
Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
6) There is, of course, Marina Oswald's extensive testimony outlining Oswald's ownership and use of a rifle. Of interest is the discovery of the rifle in the Paine garage:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
Marina confirms it was the same blanket discovered during the initial search of the garage on the day of the assassination:
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
The blanket was folded, rolled and tied with twine to form a container for the rifle. When discovered, Guy Rose stated he could still see the outline of the rifle .
So the curtain rods were still in the garage but the rifle was gone.
7) When asked why she thought Oswald showed up on the Thursday, Marina stated it was because he wanted to "make his peace" with her. As with the curtain rod excuse given to Frazier, this could have waited until Friday. Marina reveals that Oswald wanted to reunite with Marina and the children as soon as possible:
"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 would rent a apartment "tomorrow" if she wanted it. He could hardly bring his family back to the cubby-hole he was living in and it seems he wanted to find somewhere for the family to live together "tomorrow". Hardly a man in need of sprucing up his existing room with some curtain rods.
8) No need for curtain rods
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jnh6D7T5/Oswald-s-room.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yQJT3y1/Screenshot-75.png) (https://postimages.org/)
He mentioned nothing about needing them to Ruth Paine, who he supposedly just took them from, Mrs Roberts, the housekeeper where he lived or the Johnsons, the owners of the house:
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.
On one side is a large conspiracy involving Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Counsel Jenner, Agent Howlett and probably some of the officers who first searched the garage.
On the other side is a scared 19 year old boy who trusted his "friend".
I know which I find more likely.
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work
You could have left the word "evidence" out as it is all only arguments, like "why would he have done that" questions that are not proof of anything.
The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.
Wrong. Frazier and Randle never claimed that Oswald had curtain rods with him. Frazier only said that Oswald had told him that and Randle only knew about it because Frazier told her.
Two more comments about the curtain rods. First of all, the fact that Ruth Paine had two sets in her garage doesn't preclude that Oswald - without Paine knowing - had a set in his belongings as well, and secondly, prior to the photos that you posted being taken, the landlady was photographed putting up curtain rods in Oswald's room. You conveniently ignored that!
I know which I find more likely.
Nobody really cares what you find likely. It's what you can prove and even if Oswald did not bring curtain rods that morning, that still does not automatically mean that he brought a rifle. And even less so a MC rifle that you can not prove was ever in Ruth Paine's garage in the first place and was still there on 11/21/63.
-
He can't explain the DPD identification bureau document, showing SSA Howlett presenting curtain rods for fingerprinting on 03/15/64 and collecting them on the 24th (1 day after 2 sets were recovered in Ruth Paine's garage), which clearly implies a third set, so he dismisses it as "suspicious"
:D
You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.
He can't explain, during his polygraph, Frazier dismissing the TSBD bag as not the one he saw Oswald carry, so he simply calls the polygraph fake.
"Frazier said that it was possible that this was the case,"
That's from the report about Frazier's polygraph. You choose to ignore this.
This is what I actually had to say about my impressions of the polygraph:
"To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?"
Does it seem real to you Martin?
If it does, what is it that convinces you it's real?
If you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic Martin!
-
:D
You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.
I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.
The only thing I can not explain is why Ltd Day would take it upon himself to use a copy of the original document to falsely provide a collection date of 03/26/64.
But it is rather telling that you accuse the Secret Service and the DPD of falsifying a document, without even being able to explain why they would do that!
"Frazier said that it was possible that this was the case,"
That's from the report about Frazier's polygraph. You choose to ignore this.
This is what I actually had to say about my impressions of the polygraph:
"To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?"
Does it seem real to you Martin?
If it does, what is it that convinces you it's real?
What you fail to understand is that the FD 302 reports what Lewis, the polygraph operator, told the FBI agent. It's not a verbatim account of the polygraph. So, here is what most likely happened'
Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".
Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does, so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it. That explanation is what Lewis told Drain.
As Frazier told me himself that he was in fact polygraphed I have no reason to assume that he wasn't.
The problem seems to be that the actual polygraph print out is not part of the JFK collection at the National Archives and nobody knows where it is. But if that means to you that it didn't happen and isn't real, then you must also consider the documents "proving" that Oswald order a rifle at Klein's are not real either, since the microfilm where they came from is also not in the collection and thus missing.
If you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic Martin!
The only difference between you and me is that I don't make assumptions and you do nothing else but speculate.
-
I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.
The only thing I can not explain is why Ltd Day would take it upon himself to use a copy of the original document to falsely provide a collection date of 03/26/64.
But it is rather telling that you accuse the Secret Service and the DPD of falsifying a document!
What you fail to understand is that the FD 302 reports what Lewis, the polygraph operator, told the FBI agent. It's not a verbatim account of the polygraph. So, here is what most likely happened'
Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".
Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does, so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it. That explanation is what Lewis told Drain.
As Frazier told me himself that he was in fact polygraphed I have no reason to assume that he wasn't.
The problem seems to be that the actual polygraph print out is not part of the JFK collection at the National Archives and nobody knows where it is. But if that means to you that it didn't happen and isn't real, then you must also consider the documents "proving" that Oswald order a rifle at Klein's are not real either, since the microfilm where they came from is also not in the collection and thus missing.
The only difference between you and me is that I don't make assumptions and you do nothing else but speculate.
"...I don't make assumptions..."
Assumption #1 - "Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".
Assumption #2 - "Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does..."
Assumption #3 - "... so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it."
Let's not forget "Oswald's travel rods" from the man who never speculates.
Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.
The point I was making concerns the "conversational" tone of the reported polygraph. Taking the report at face value it doesn't seem like a real polygraph test as I understand one. Anyone can partake in the assumptionfest that is your last post but, unlike you, I try and interpret things as I find them.
One thing you're right about - as far as the curtain rod story is concerned I'm just speculating. Presenting a possible scenario that accounts for as many of the points raised concerning this aspect of the assassination as possible.
-
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):
Invoking DVP is an automatic disqualification.
1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.
Why would Oswald deny this?
If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.
Who knows why -- or even if -- he denied this? And even if he did carry curtain rods in Frazier's car, it doesn't just follow that they would be found in the TSBD, or reported to have been found. Who looked?
2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?
What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.
This argument-by-why-not can only carry you so far. It's rhetoric. It can lead you wherever you want to go. The fact remains that we don't know what was in Oswald's package.
5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:
Yet somehow the "just two curtain rods" were submitted into evidence via a CSS form 8 days before they were "taken from the Paine garage".
This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:
And this picture shows Mrs. Johnson putting up new curtain rods after the assassination.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5EzGXCrrIQs/U3iNuSeXBiI/AAAAAAAA0Cs/enOSCvythBw/s1600/LHO-Room.jpg)
-
"...I don't make assumptions..."
Assumption #1 - "Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".
Assumption #2 - "Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does..."
Assumption #3 - "... so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it."
Let's not forget "Oswald's travel rods" from the man who never speculates.
Oh boy, I was just trying to explain to you how it would have worked, but even that, it seems, was way over your head.
Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.
The point I was making concerns the "conversational" tone of the reported polygraph. Taking the report at face value it doesn't seem like a real polygraph test as I understand one. Anyone can partake in the assumptionfest that is your last post but, unlike you, I try and interpret things as I find them.
Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.
I know, you just called it "not a real polygraph test"
The point I was making concerns the "conversational" tone of the reported polygraph. Taking the report at face value it doesn't seem like a real polygraph test as I understand one.
The "conversational" tone was what Drain wrote in his report after talking to Lewis. It was not a report of the actual polygraph test.
One thing you're right about - as far as the curtain rod story is concerned I'm just speculating. Presenting a possible scenario that accounts for as many of the points raised concerning this aspect of the assassination as possible.
Give me a break. All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative.
-
He can't explain the DPD identification bureau document, showing SSA Howlett presenting curtain rods for fingerprinting on 03/15/64 and collecting them on the 24th (1 day after 2 sets were recovered in Ruth Paine's garage), which clearly implies a third set, so he dismisses it as "suspicious"
Just to be clear-------we have a) two curtain rods (each containing two pieces) submitted for testing 3/15 + b) two curtain rods (each containing two pieces) extracted from the Paine garage 3/23. There is no 'third set'.
-
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):
And so the mask slips further
-
Who knows why -- or even if -- he denied this? And even if he did carry curtain rods in Frazier's car, it doesn't just follow that they would be found in the TSBD, or reported to have been found. Who looked?
The point I'm making is that he would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods to work. Not only is it a perfectly innocent thing to do
It's just a fact that no curtain rods were ever reported to have been found in the TSBD. This doesn't prove anything, it merely supports the notion they were never there. Taken by itself it doesn't mean much but it's part of a larger narrative composed of lots of these small things that, in isolation, don't mean much and can be interpreted in many different ways. If curtain rods had been found at some point it would be of some significance but, again it wouldn't mean much in and of itself.
This argument-by-why-not can only carry you so far. It's rhetoric. It can lead you wherever you want to go. The fact remains that we don't know what was in Oswald's package.
Agreed. It's just another of those small pieces. Significance is put on Oswald breaking his routine the night before the assassination because he had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage and it was established a rifle was used in the assassination. Breaking his routine to collect curtain rods seems like a BS: excuse when he could have got them Friday night. Through various testimonies it was established the curtain rods were still there but the rifle was missing. This is of great significance to those who believe Oswald was involved in the assassination.
Taken in isolation this piece of the puzzle "can lead you wherever you want to go", but as these pieces are put together they have to form a coherent narrative.
Yet somehow the "just two curtain rods" were submitted into evidence via a CSS form 8 days before they were "taken from the Paine garage".
Is that a fact?
And this picture shows Mrs. Johnson putting up new curtain rods after the assassination.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5EzGXCrrIQs/U3iNuSeXBiI/AAAAAAAA0Cs/enOSCvythBw/s1600/LHO-Room.jpg)
Turning to Mr Von Pein:
"Mrs. Johnson stated that when the Dallas, Texas, Police searched this room following Oswald's arrest, they bent the rod which held the drapes and curtains. Consequently, she stated, she had the old rod taken down and replaced it with a traverse rod and aqua-colored acetate drapes. A traverse rod and acetate drapes replaced the lace curtain which was on the end wall window." [page 3 of CD705]
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4TQ2NSG/Oswald-Room-On-Beckley-Avenue-Showing-Damaged-Curtain-Rod.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
And so the mask slips further
;D
And what mask might that be Alan?
-
Oh boy, I was just trying to explain to you how it would have worked, but even that, it seems, was way over your head.
Just to let you know, at no point have I stated that Frazier didn't undergo a polygraph test.
I know, you just called it "not a real polygraph test"
The point I was making concerns the "conversational" tone of the reported polygraph. Taking the report at face value it doesn't seem like a real polygraph test as I understand one.
The "conversational" tone was what Drain wrote in his report after talking to Lewis. It was not a report of the actual polygraph test.
Give me a break. All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative.
"All you're doing is going along with the highly selective WC narrative."
The arguments I'm presnting lead there own way. Just because it's what the WC concluded is of no relevance.
-
:D
You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.
Again with Mr O'Meara's shameless McAdams-style sleight of hand: Let's spin the fact that there were shenanigans with the release date as meaning the document is somehow LESS damning for the official story
-
Again with Mr O'Meara's shameless McAdams-style sleight of hand: Let's spin the fact that there were shenanigans with the release date as meaning the document is somehow LESS damning for the official story
;D
Oh Alan. I love the way you admit there were "shenanigans" with the document then criticise me for putting some kind of spin on it.
The document is damning because it reveals clear tampering with the processing of evidence. Isn't that enough for you?
-
I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.
And one that was not made public until decades after the assassination.
Now! The crucial point is that the document makes clear that the rods were submitted to lab for fingerprint testing specifically for Mr Oswald's prints. This tells us where the rods were found: Texas School Book Depository, the one place where the finding of rods with a forensic link to Mr Oswald would be highly (indeed explosively) significant.
-
;D
Oh Alan. I love the way you admit there were "shenanigans" with the document then criticise me for putting some kind of spin on it.
The document is damning because it reveals clear tampering with the processing of evidence.
Lol
The documents are damning because they reveal
-------------i) clear tampering with the processing of evidence
ON TOP OF
-------------ii) proof that two curtain rods were submitted for testing FOR MR OSWALD'S PRINTS eight days BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage
Your McAdams-style attempt to use i) to neutralize the disaster (for you and your WC apologist buddies) presented by ii) is quite pathetic, though hardly surprising at this stage. What you have on your hands here is a DOUBLE whammy against the claim that no curtain rods were found in the Depository after the assassination.
-
Lol
The documents are damning because they reveal
-------------i) clear tampering with the processing of evidence
ON TOP OF
-------------ii) proof that two curtain rods were submitted for testing FOR MR OSWALD'S PRINTS eight days BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage
Your McAdams-style attempt to use i) to neutralize the disaster (for you and your WC apologist buddies) presented by ii) is quite pathetic, though hardly surprising at this stage. What you have on your hands here is a DOUBLE whammy against the claim that no curtain rods were found in the Depository after the assassination.
"proof that two curtain rods were submitted for testing FOR MR OSWALD'S PRINTS eight days BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage"
Proof?
So, by your own logic the document "proves" the rods were released on the 24th and the 26th!
Your little ego-trip of being "the person who first pointed out the release dates anomaly" is blinding you.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4TQ2NSG/Oswald-Room-On-Beckley-Avenue-Showing-Damaged-Curtain-Rod.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Look at this picture of Oswald's room.
Three windows are visible but there is a fourth window just off to the right of the picture.
There is something very obviously wrong with the idea that Oswald took the two curtain rods for his bedroom.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjxyKwFY/Frazier-report.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/v4K4tBy0)
I'm trying to determine the earliest the investigating authorities were round at the Randle house.
The best I can find is the above report stating Rose and Stovall went there after picking him up at Irving PD (around 5:35pm according to the FBI report you posted), searching his car, then going to the house (around 6pm??)
It's interesting to note Rose and Stovall say they got the info about WBF's location from LMR but when did that happen?
At around 27.20 Frazier clearly states that when he went directly home and his sister was watching coverage of the assassination on TV. They both said it was a horrible thing and that the TSBD was involved. Then he turned it off!
At 31.20 there is interesting exchange about the curtain rods. Up until questioning by police he never associated the "curtain rod package" with the crime. It seems the cops asked if he was carrying a package anf Frazier mentions curtain rods for the first time.
At 32.30 He claims the cops went to his sister's house first – asked his mother - she said up at hospital with his sister.
1.01.11 Frazier said he thinks he heard of Tippit death from mother after got home. She had TV on.
Has anyone tried listening to this interview other than me? It is most enlightening and is clearer with earbuds. Not the easiest but most of the dialogue can be made out.
I am wondering if McCabe and his buddy were needed at the Irving hospital for jurisdiction. Like the deputies were needed for the Paine's house. Homicide cops were restricted. Would this explain Frazier's inserting Rose and Stovall only into his arrest and initial escape attempt?
-
Evidence and arguments that support the proposal that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to work ( a shout -out to David Von Pein from whose site I lifted most of the following points):
1) Oswald denied carrying curtain rods to work.
Why would Oswald deny this? If he'd carried curtain rods to work that day he could've told the authorities this and told them where to find them. No curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD. Nobody in the TSBD (other than Frazier) reported seeing Oswald with a long package.
2) Why did Oswald need the curtain rods on Thursday night?
What was the urgency for curtain rods on Thursday? Why not pick them up on Friday night and bring them with him on Monday? Breaking his routine that weekend to go to Irving on the Thursday supports the view he was picking up his rifle because he would need that on Friday. It's doubtful he urgently needed curtain rods on Friday.
3) Why did Oswald leave the curtain rods at work when he left?
If Oswald is just an innocent guy in no rush to get away, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him when he left on Friday? He's made a trip especially to collect them on Thursday then simply walked off without them on Friday. This is easily explained if there were never any curtain rods in the first place.
4) Ruth Paine testifies on more than one occasion that there were just two curtain rods (which she had wrapped and placed on the shelf herself). She testified that this was the case at the WC hearings and the 1986 assassination "docu-trial":
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in
the garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
5) On 3/23/64 Counsel Jenner and Agent Howlett visit Ruth Paine. As part of a lengthy deposition they record taking the curtain rods from the Paine garage:
Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
Mr. JENNER - And is it now in the place it was to the best of your recollection on November 21, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
6) There is, of course, Marina Oswald's extensive testimony outlining Oswald's ownership and use of a rifle. Of interest is the discovery of the rifle in the Paine garage:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
Marina confirms it was the same blanket discovered during the initial search of the garage on the day of the assassination:
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
The blanket was folded, rolled and tied with twine to form a container for the rifle. When discovered, Guy Rose stated he could still see the outline of the rifle .
So the curtain rods were still in the garage but the rifle was gone.
7) When asked why she thought Oswald showed up on the Thursday, Marina stated it was because he wanted to "make his peace" with her. As with the curtain rod excuse given to Frazier, this could have waited until Friday. Marina reveals that Oswald wanted to reunite with Marina and the children as soon as possible:
"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 would rent a apartment "tomorrow" if she wanted it. He could hardly bring his family back to the cubby-hole he was living in and it seems he wanted to find somewhere for the family to live together "tomorrow". Hardly a man in need of sprucing up his existing room with some curtain rods.
8) No need for curtain rods
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jnh6D7T5/Oswald-s-room.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This picture of Oswald's room clearly shows perfectly adequate curtain rods. Not to mention the venetian blinds on the windows:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yQJT3y1/Screenshot-75.png) (https://postimages.org/)
He mentioned nothing about needing them to Ruth Paine, who he supposedly just took them from, Mrs Roberts, the housekeeper where he lived or the Johnsons, the owners of the house:
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
The only substantial evidence that Oswald had curtain rods with him are the testimonies of Frazier and his sister. That's it.
On one side is a large conspiracy involving Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Counsel Jenner, Agent Howlett and probably some of the officers who first searched the garage.
On the other side is a scared 19 year old boy who trusted his "friend".
I know which I find more likely.
To summarise. Just Frazier claiming the trip was to collect curtain rods. Such an unusual event that it was topic of discussion between brother and sister Thursday afternoon. Both forget about them.
As for the rifle, taken to NO wrapped in a blanket and noticed there by Marina. She saw the blanket a week after moving back to Dallas. The blanket looked the same with or without rifle.
-
In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
I have to assume it's because Oswald told him about them. Otherwise it's a wildly lucky guess.
What makes you think Oswald was aware of them prior to the 11th of November? Frazier did claim to have wrapped curtain rods in a previous job. If there were no rods in the Paine garage would that have changed events? Was Oswald fearful of Frazier's knowledge of the garage contents?
-
"proof that two curtain rods were submitted for testing FOR MR OSWALD'S PRINTS eight days BEFORE two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage"
Proof?
Well, duh
So, by your own logic the document "proves" the rods were released on the 24th and the 26th!
No, Mr O'Meara, do try to keep up. I believe that two rods (those found in the Depository) were released on the 24th and thrown away, and two different rods (those taken from the Paine garage 3/23) were released on the 26th. Only the "3/26/64" version of the form was made public (via the Warren volumes). This was the switcheroo, via the numbers 275 & 276.
What's your explanation? Oh, I forgot, you don't have one---------it's why you're getting so hot and bothered as you scramble to find ways to spin this in a Warren Report-friendly way
-
No, Mr O'Meara, do try to keep up. I believe that two rods (those found in the Depository) were released on the 24th and thrown away, and two different rods (those taken from the Paine garage 3/23) were released on the 26th. Only the "3/26/64" version of the form was made public (via the Warren volumes). This was the switcheroo, via the numbers 275 & 276.
"... do try to keep up."
It's impossible to keep up with you Alan as you flit between reality and fantasy constantly. You have the very unfair advantage of not being tied to logic or common sense. But I'll try my best.
So, let me see if I understand what you believe:
Two rods were found in the TSBD and submitted to Day on 3/15/64
Two rods were taken from the Paine residence on 3/23/64
These two rods were submitted to Day on 3/23/64 but this submission is not documented.
The first two rods (TSBD) were released on 3/24/64 and then "thrown away" (??)
The second two rods were then released on 3/26/64
How am I doing so far?
-
What makes you think Oswald was aware of them prior to the 11th of November? Frazier did claim to have wrapped curtain rods in a previous job. If there were no rods in the Paine garage would that have changed events? Was Oswald fearful of Frazier's knowledge of the garage contents?
"What makes you think Oswald was aware of them prior to the 11th of November?"
Not sure I follow. The 11th?
There is nothing that documents Oswald's "awareness" of the rods.
Oswald himself denies bringing the rods to work.
It's only Frazier's word that the long package contained curtain rods and this is only because he states that Oswald told him about them.
Frazier never sees what's inside the package.
Either Oswald told him there were curtain rods in the long package or he didn't.
"If there were no rods in the Paine garage would that have changed events?"
It wouldn't have changed anything that happened that day.
Oswald might've come up with a different excuse for why he was carrying a long package with him to work that morning.
If Oswald carried the rifle with him to work that day he would need to have some kind of excuse ready as Frazier would surely ask about it. It could have been anything that was long and thin. Oswald had a lot of his belongings in the garage, including his rifle, and had spent time in there which would have given him the opportunity to come across the curtain rods that had been on the shelf since long before he and Marina arrived at the Paine house.
When coming up with his excuse for Frazier he may have picked the curtain rods simply because they were long and thin and in the garage.
"Was Oswald fearful of Frazier's knowledge of the garage contents?"
Really not sure what you mean by this. How would Frazier have any knowledge of the garage contents?
-
"What makes you think Oswald was aware of them prior to the 11th of November?"
Not sure I follow. The 11th?
When was Oswald at the Paine's previously? Ie. His last opportunity to notice the wrapped curtain rods?
My point is in all this is Frazier is the key witness linking Oswald to a package that day. Cops were linking CE 142 to carrying the rifle before 3pm. Is it possible that that information transferred to Frazier's mother or LMR that afternoon?
-
When was Oswald at the Paine's previously? Ie. His last opportunity to notice the wrapped curtain rods?
My point is in all this is Frazier is the key witness linking Oswald to a package that day. Cops were linking CE 142 to carrying the rifle before 3pm. Is it possible that that information transferred to Frazier's mother or LMR that afternoon?
As I understand it Oswald left the Paine house on the morning of the 12th Nov. and didn't return until the evening of the 22nd.
So the last real opportunity for Oswald to have seen the rods would've been, as you say, the 11th Nov.
Without BWF and LMR there is no long package/curtain rod story.
As I understand it, the police were linking Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the long bag before BWF and LMR say anything about it.
The first recorded mention of the long bag is when LMR goes up to Adamcik and tells him about it (I'm assuming that she also tells him about Frazier visiting his step-dad in the hospital at this time.)
Detective Montgomery is photographed leaving the TSBD with the bag around 3:00pm. I don't know if he was also filmed or if these images were broadcast.
Frazier insists he was in the hospital only a short time before being arrested which indicates he could have been at home as late as 4:45pm.
-
So, let me see if I understand what you believe:
Two rods were found in the TSBD and submitted to Day on 3/15/64
Thumb1:
Two rods were taken from the Paine residence on 3/23/64
Thumb1:
These two rods were submitted to Day on 3/23/64 but this submission is not documented.
Not necessarily on 3/23/64
The first two rods (TSBD) were released on 3/24/64 and then "thrown away" (??)
= shorthand for 'Agent Howlett made sure they were never seen again'
The second two rods were then released on 3/26/64
Thumb1:
How am I doing so far?
Surprisingly well, Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
-
How would Frazier have any knowledge of the garage contents?
What about your previous suggestion that Mr Oswald had told Mr Frazier about there being curtain rods in the garage?
-
Thumb1:
Thumb1:
Not necessarily on 3/23/64
= shorthand for 'Agent Howlett made sure they were never seen again'
Thumb1:
Surprisingly well, Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
Excellent.
So let's see if I can take it a step further.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/00/u8TYD7U2_o.gif)
On the 15th the rods are submitted.
Using a red pen Day fills in the details:
Date of submission etc.
The description of what has been submitted.
The "Examination Request" - "Check for prints"
His signature to confirm he received the specimen.
Howlett signs as the officer submitting the specimen.
Once he has completed his examination he writes the result at the bottom.
After this the two documents are separated and filled in differently.
Still on track?
-
What about your previous suggestion that Mr Oswald had told Mr Frazier about there being curtain rods in the garage?
How does that answer Colin's question:
"Was Oswald fearful of Frazier's knowledge of the garage contents?"
I assumed this meant if Oswald was fearful of Frazier's knowledge of the garage contents prior to mentioning the curtain rods.
To be honest, I'm not sure I actually understand the question.
-
Without BWF and LMR there is no long package/curtain rod story.
As I understand it, the police were linking Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the long bag before BWF and LMR say anything about it.
The first recorded mention of the long bag is when LMR goes up to Adamcik and tells him about it (I'm assuming that she also tells him about Frazier visiting his step-dad in the hospital at this time.)
Detective Montgomery is photographed leaving the TSBD with the bag around 3:00pm. I don't know if he was also filmed or if these images were broadcast.
Frazier insists he was in the hospital only a short time before being arrested which indicates he could have been at home as late as 4:45pm.
I have repeatedly provided links to Frazier's HSCA interview here. They contain valuable info. Once piece is that after he left home his mother was visited by cops and she told them where he was.
Another clip contains phrasing that suggests the curtain rods only came after questioning by police about a long package..
Adamcik doesn’t even mention his exchange with LMR in his solo report. LMR mentions nothing about curtain rods in the Rose,Stovall, Adamcik report, although she was told of them the previous evening.
There was communication between Irving and Dallas that afternoon. Some questions that a cop might ask. Did Oswald own a rifle? Where is it stored? Did you see him leave with a long paper package this morning?
The last one is relevant to LMR and Frazier's mother.
-
The point I'm making is that he would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods to work.
Maybe it was the truth. All we have to go on that Oswald ever even mentioned curtain rods is Frazier's say-so.
If curtain rods had been found at some point it would be of some significance
That's why Alan is pursuing his hypothesis. If curtain rods were found in the Paine garage on March 23 and had never been moved, then what curtain rods were submitted into evidence on March 15, and where were they found?
Agreed. It's just another of those small pieces. Significance is put on Oswald breaking his routine the night before the assassination because he had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage and it was established a rifle was used in the assassination. Breaking his routine to collect curtain rods seems like a BS: excuse when he could have got them Friday night. Through various testimonies it was established the curtain rods were still there but the rifle was missing. This is of great significance to those who believe Oswald was involved in the assassination.
I know it is. Because they will glom on to any little speculation and conjecture and call it "evidence". Curtain rods could very well be a "BS excuse", but it doesn't just follow that it is a BS excuse for fetching a rifle to kill the president. And no, we don't actually know that he "had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage" on the 21st. That's an assumption too.
Turning to Mr Von Pein:
That's your first mistake. He's a propagandist.
"Mrs. Johnson stated that when the Dallas, Texas, Police searched this room following Oswald's arrest, they bent the rod which held the drapes and curtains. Consequently, she stated, she had the old rod taken down and replaced it with a traverse rod and aqua-colored acetate drapes. A traverse rod and acetate drapes replaced the lace curtain which was on the end wall window."
Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me. And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself. This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.
-
If Oswald carried the rifle with him to work that day he would need to have some kind of excuse ready as Frazier would surely ask about it. It could have been anything that was long and thin.
Since we like to play the "why didn't Oswald do X" game around here....
Oswald typically brought his laundry to the Paine house to be done over the weekends. If Oswald wanted to bring a rifle, why didn't he bring it inside a duffel bag filled with laundry? No need to steal paper and tape from work. No need to make up an excuse for something long and thin. No need to do anything that departed from his usual routine or that would be noteworthy to anybody.
Oswald had a lot of his belongings in the garage, including his rifle,
You still don't know that for a fact.
and had spent time in there
Evidence that he spent time in the Paine garage?
which would have given him the opportunity to come across the curtain rods that had been on the shelf since long before he and Marina arrived at the Paine house.
Come across how? They were wrapped in paper and sealed with sticky tape.
-
As I understand it, the police were linking Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the long bag before BWF and LMR say anything about it.
No, there was nothing whatsoever linking Oswald to that rifle on Friday. And there still isn't anything linking any rifle to the long bag.
-
Maybe it was the truth. All we have to go on that Oswald ever even mentioned curtain rods is Frazier's say-so.
That's why Alan is pursuing his hypothesis. If curtain rods were found in the Paine garage on March 23 and had never been moved, then what curtain rods were submitted into evidence on March 15, and where were they found?
I know it is. Because they will glom on to any little speculation and conjecture and call it "evidence". Curtain rods could very well be a "BS excuse", but it doesn't just follow that it is a BS excuse for fetching a rifle to kill the president. And no, we don't actually know that he "had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage" on the 21st. That's an assumption too.
That's your first mistake. He's a propagandist.
Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me. And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself. This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.
That's your first mistake. He's a propagandist.
That's correct....Do not fall into Von Pein's trap.....
-
The form that has now been posted at least a thousand times references the same WC numbers given to the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage. There is no doubt they are one and the same. There is no evidence whatsoever that any curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD. None. In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD. The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date. Is the date wrong? When was the date entered? Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date? That may all be fodder for nutty CTers but as a narrative for a conspiracy it makes no sense for the authorities to suppress curtain rods to frame Oswald and then bring them to light months later to check for Oswald's prints. And conveniently document this process on a form. The very last thing they would have ever done. And then somehow in this fantasy they somehow convince the person who discovered the curtain rods to remain silent while also convincing Truly to lie that no such curtain rods were ever found. And on and on. Same old nonsense.
-
The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date. Is the date wrong? When was the date entered? Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date?
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/05/13/pasted-image-at-2016_05_13-01_38-pm_custom-e569ed62fa53ee379f151c4b80502f1af049787f-s1100-c15.png)
-
Excellent.
So let's see if I can take it a step further.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7c/00/u8TYD7U2_o.gif)
On the 15th the rods are submitted.
Using a red pen Day fills in the details:
Date of submission etc.
The description of what has been submitted.
The "Examination Request" - "Check for prints"
His signature to confirm he received the specimen.
Howlett signs as the officer submitting the specimen.
Once he has completed his examination he writes the result at the bottom.
After this the two documents are separated and filled in differently.
Still on track?
Thumb1:
(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)
-
Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me. And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself. This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.
It has been suggested by (IIRC) Mr Anthony Marsh that Mr Oswald wanted heavier, darker curtains and realized such would need stronger rods
-
Thumb1:
(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)
Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.
So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276
-
Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.
So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276
No, the Warren Commission Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 had already been assigned elsewhere (during Mr Robert Oswald's WC testimony in February), and the assigning of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 was still eight days in the future.
The rods submitted to the lab 3/15/64 were marked (for whatever non-WC-related reason) with the numbers 275 and 276. This is what necessitated the later blatantly contrived creation of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276. The 'marking' of two curtain rods as such was the entire point of the testimony session in Irving 3/23/64
-
No, the Warren Commission Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 had already been assigned elsewhere (during Mr Robert Oswald's WC testimony in February), and the assigning of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 was still eight days in the future.
The rods submitted to the lab 3/15/64 were marked (for whatever non-WC-related reason) with the numbers 275 and 276. This is what necessitated the later blatantly contrived creation of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276. The 'marking' of two curtain rods as such was the entire point of the testimony session in Irving 3/23/64
And off to Tinfoil Fantasyland we go...
Ruth Paine's house, 3/23/64
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.)
So the two rods taken from Ruth Paine's house are marked Ruth Paine exhibits 275 and 276
The two curtain rods on the dubious DPD report are marked 275 and 276
Common sense would tell us that these are one and the same rods.
But not in Tinfoil Fantasyland.
In this other realm two rods are submitted to Day by Agent Howlett. How they came into Agent Howlett's possession cannot be explained. (Back in the real world Howlett takes charge of them at Ruth Paine's house and delivers them to Day)
Someone has scribbled the numbers 275 and 276 on the rods for no known reason, this cannot be explained. (Back in the real world they are "marked" for identification. That's why Day bothers to mention it.)
Rather than just ignore these random numbers or erase them, a massively elaborate hoax is put in motion, the reason for which cannot be explained. (Back in the real world the "hoax" is merely an extension of Ruth Paine's testimony).
The Hoaxers (Paine, Jenner, Howlett and "Miss Reporter") have all learned their parts.
A complex choreography is performed as they move through the house asking and answering various questions, taking various measurements and picking up exhibits as they go along which are carefully marked, starting at "Ruth Paine Exhibit 270". They have to make sure that by the time they get to the curtain rods they are ready to use the all important numbers - 275 and 276.
"But why?", you may ask.
"Why do the curtain rods have to be marked 275 and 276 just because some unknown person scrawled these numbers on the ones submitted to Day?"
"...ssshhh, nobody will ever know..."
"Hold on a second", you say in a confused tone, "What's the point of this massively elaborate hoax, the specific goal of which is to mark these curtain rods 275 and 276, when there's an official document stating these rods were already submitted eight days ago? It just doesn't make any sense".
"...ssshhh, this is Tinfoil Fantasyland. Unfold the wings of your imagination and fly away..."
"But why not just throw the "TSBD rods" away immediately? Why submit them, then throw them away?"
"...fly awaaaay..."
As you might have guessed Alan, I'm not too impressed with your answer.
Here's a bit of Occam's Razor for you - the submission date is wrong.
One one hand a massively elaborate, totally pointless hoax.
On the other - a wrong submission date.
-
Dan's sarcastic strawman arguments are tedious.
Why was it called Ruth Paine exhibit 275 when she didn't have that many exhibits? Perhaps that number was already written on the package that Ruth Paine had in her garage. Perhaps it's just an uncanny coincidence that Howlett measured the curtain rod to be "2 feet 3 1/2 inches", or 27.5 inches.
-
And off to Tinfoil Fantasyland we go...
~Grin~
You always resort to such OTT rhetoric, Mr O'Meara, when you know you're losing the argument. You sound rattled:)
Ruth Paine's house, 3/23/64
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.)
So the two rods taken from Ruth Paine's house are marked Ruth Paine exhibits 275 and 276
The two curtain rods on the dubious DPD report are marked 275 and 276
Common sense would tell us that these are one and the same rods.
But not in Tinfoil Fantasyland.
Common sense would tell us 3/15/64 comes BEFORE 3/23/64 and 3/24/64 comes AFTER 3/23/64. But not in WC Apologist Land
In this other realm two rods are submitted to Day by Agent Howlett. How they came into Agent Howlett's possession cannot be explained.
Sure it can--------------a Depository employee brought them to his attention
(Back in the real world Howlett takes charge of them at Ruth Paine's house and delivers them to Day)
Someone has scribbled the numbers 275 and 276 on the rods for no known reason, this cannot be explained. (Back in the real world they are "marked" for identification. That's why Day bothers to mention it.)
Rather than just ignore these random numbers or erase them, a massively elaborate hoax is put in motion, the reason for which cannot be explained.
Sure it can: the Depository employee saw and remembers the '275' and '276' markings on the rods, so this fact needs to be neutralized
(Back in the real world the "hoax" is merely an extension of Ruth Paine's testimony).
The Hoaxers (Paine, Jenner, Howlett and "Miss Reporter") have all learned their parts.
A complex choreography is performed as they move through the house asking and answering various questions, taking various measurements and picking up exhibits as they go along which are carefully marked, starting at "Ruth Paine Exhibit 270". They have to make sure that by the time they get to the curtain rods they are ready to use the all important numbers - 275 and 276.
Correct! Thumb1:
If you disagree, perhaps you will be so kind as to offer your explanation why the random number 270 was chosen as a starting point? Because right now it sounds like you ain't got one
"But why?", you may ask.
"Why do the curtain rods have to be marked 275 and 276 just because some unknown person scrawled these numbers on the ones submitted to Day?"
Asked and answered: the Depository employee who found the rods
"...ssshhh, nobody will ever know..."
"Hold on a second", you say in a confused tone, "What's the point of this massively elaborate hoax, the point of which is to mark these curtain rods 275 and 276, when there's an official document stating these rods were already submitted eight days ago? It just doesn't make any sense".
It makes perfect sense: documentary evidence needed to be shown the Depository employee that the matter had been looked into thoroughly. Otherwise there was a risk this witness would go public and undermine a key plank of the case against Mr Oswald
"...ssshhh, this is Tinfoil Fantasyland. Unfold the wings of your imagination and fly away..."
"But why not just throw the "TSBD rods" away immediately? Why submit them, then throw them away?"
Again....... the Depository employee
"...fly awaaaay..."
You're trying too hard, Mr O'Meara!
As you might have guessed Alan, I'm not too impressed with your answer.
Here's a bit of Occam's Razor for you - the submission date is wrong.
One one hand a massively elaborate, totally pointless hoax.
On the other - a wrong submission date.
Ah, so your grand solution is the same as your fellow WC Apologist Mr Richard Smith's:
---------------------they got the submission date wrong
---------------------they got the release date wrong
And that's before we even get to the question: Why the heck would anyone feel the need to test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints two curtain rods found in the Paine garage? What exactly would a positive result establish?
:D
-
Dan's sarcastic strawman arguments are tedious.
But entertaining in their desperate ineptitude!
Why was it called Ruth Paine exhibit 275 when she didn't have that many exhibits? Perhaps that number was already written on the package that Ruth Paine had in her garage. Perhaps it's just an uncanny coincidence that Howlett measured the curtain rod to be "2 feet 3 1/2 inches", or 27.5 inches.
Total fluke!
Another total fluke: Mr Frazier's estimate of the length of the package is one half of one inch off the length of the curtain rod
-
But entertaining in their desperate ineptitude!
Total fluke!
Another total fluke: Mr Frazier's estimate of the length of the package is one half of one inch off the length of the curtain rod
Obviously a complete fluke because everybody knows that there was a 40-inch Mannlicher Carcano rifle in that package.
::)
-
A curtain rods fingerprint card from Lt Day. Note the date--------------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ef/59/xAuUnkaq_o.jpg)
-
On November 22 and 23, 1963, the Paine garage was, as one would expect, very thoroughly searched.............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5a/03/Kf3aoxMo_o.jpg)
As one would most certainly NOT expect, given the centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case, not a single report anywhere mentions anything about curtain rods in that garage. The idea that no one thought of checking to see whether curtain rods were there is obviously quite ludicrous.
If Mr Oswald had brought no curtain rods to the Depository the morning of the assassination, the following would have happened:
ALL curtain rods in the garage before the assassination would have still been in the garage and would have been immediately found and recorded as having been found in the garage. Ms Paine would have been put on the record immediately as confirming that no curtain rods were missing. The world would have been told all about this crucial development in the Oswald-Did-It case.
Yet somehow none of this happened. Instead we get complete radio silence about curtain rods in the garage until March '64, when two curtain rods are extracted from the Paine garage----------EIGHT DAYS AFTER two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints.
Go figure!
Thumb1:
-
A curtain rods fingerprint card from Lt Day. Note the date--------------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ef/59/xAuUnkaq_o.jpg)
The rods were tested for prints the day after they were released to Howlett?
-
On November 22 and 23, 1963, the Paine garage was, as one would expect, very thoroughly searched.............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5a/03/Kf3aoxMo_o.jpg)
As one would most certainly NOT expect, given the centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case, not a single report anywhere mentions anything about curtain rods in that garage.
If Mr Oswald had brought no curtain rods to the Depository the morning of the assassination, the following would have happened:
ALL curtain rods in the garage before the assassination would have still been in the garage and would have been immediately found and recorded as having been found in the garage. Ms Paine would have been put on the record immediately as confirming that no curtain rods were missing. The world would have been told all about this crucial development in the Oswald-Did-It case.
Instead we get 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64, and then two curtain rods extracted from the Paine garage on 3/23/64.
Go figure!
Thumb1:
Huh. Why would any curtain rods in the Paine garage been recorded at that point? If they were noticed in the garage AFTER the assassination obviously they were in not in the bag taken by Oswald to the TSBD. Months later in an exercise of due diligence once the curtain rod story was known the investigators took a closer look at them. You are really grasping at fantasy straws.
-
The rods were tested for prints the day after they were released to Howlett?
No--------two rods were tested for prints the day after two rods were released to Agent Howlett.
Now, Mr O'Meara! You have claimed that the straightforward solution to this document-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/b5/hHyp0BKO_o.jpg)
------------is that the submission date is simply an error.
OK. What do you think the correct submission date might have been?
-
Huh. Why would any curtain rods in the Paine garage been recorded at that point? If they were noticed in the garage AFTER the assassination obviously they were in not in the bag taken by Oswald to the TSBD.
And that fact would most certainly have been recorded, given how crucial it would have been to the case being mounted against Mr Oswald.
It's not however recorded, or the matter even brought up, in any of the official documents.
This form, which I'm reposting as I know how much seeing it upsets you, explains why--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/b5/hHyp0BKO_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
No--------two rods were tested for prints the day after two rods were released to Agent Howlett.
Now, Mr O'Meara! You have claimed that the straightforward solution to this document-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/b5/hHyp0BKO_o.jpg)
------------is that the submission date is simply an error.
OK. What do you think the correct submission date might have been?
The rods were picked up on the 23rd
Given to Day on the 24th
Tested on the 25th
Released on the 26th
-
On November 22 and 23, 1963, the Paine garage was, as one would expect, very thoroughly searched.............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5a/03/Kf3aoxMo_o.jpg)
As one would most certainly NOT expect, given the centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case, not a single report anywhere mentions anything about curtain rods in that garage. The idea that no one thought of checking to see whether curtain rods were there is obviously quite ludicrous.
If Mr Oswald had brought no curtain rods to the Depository the morning of the assassination, the following would have happened:
ALL curtain rods in the garage before the assassination would have still been in the garage and would have been immediately found and recorded as having been found in the garage. Ms Paine would have been put on the record immediately as confirming that no curtain rods were missing. The world would have been told all about this crucial development in the Oswald-Did-It case.
Yet somehow none of this happened. Instead we get complete radio silence about curtain rods in the garage until March '64, when two curtain rods are extracted from the Paine garage----------EIGHT DAYS AFTER two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints.
Go figure!
Thumb1:
The centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case?
I doubt there was one law enforcement official involved in the investigation who thought for a nanosecond Oswald brought curtain rods with him.
As far as they were concerned they had the murder weapon tied to an ID Oswald was carrying.
Oswald himself denied carrying the curtain rods.
And if that wasn't enough, word had come down from on high that Oswald did it. End of story.
There was no "centrality of the curtain rods".
No-one gave a s"%t about curtain rods.
I doubt it crossed anyone's mind at any point.
It was only after the investigation, when difficult questions were being asked about how shoddy and incompetent the investigation was, that the rods became an issue.
-
The rods were picked up on the 23rd
Given to Day on the 24th
Tested on the 25th
Released on the 26th
So, your 'solution' is that
-------------on March 24 Lt Day, even as he made a precise time notation, thought the date was March 15
-------------on March 26 Lt Day, even as he made a precise time notation, thought the date was March 24
-------------on March 25, when Lt Day was testing the rods and making fingerprint cards, he laid off the marijuana and so put the correct date down
-------------on March 24 and March 26, Agent Howlett was as high as Lt Day and so happily signed off on the notion that March 24 was March 15, and March 26 was March 24
-------------Lt Day later noticed and corrected his release date error (though noting that he had gotten the time notation correct), but somehow failed to notice (on the same form!) the error with the submission date
The prime question arising from all this is: What have you been smoking, Mr O'Meara?
-
The centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case?
I doubt there was one law enforcement official involved in the investigation who thought for a nanosecond Oswald brought curtain rods with him.
Good grief, talk about missing the point!
The Oswald-Did-It 'investigators' had a very simple way of proving to the world that Mr Oswald had lied to Mr Frazier: ask Ms Paine about curtain rods........ take a look in her garage............ write up the damning result in an official report
None of this happened
Thumb1:
-
So, your 'solution' is that
-------------on March 24 Lt Day, even as he made a precise time notation, thought the date was March 15
-------------on March 26 Lt Day, even as he made a precise time notation, thought the date was March 24
-------------on March 25, when Lt Day was testing the rods and making fingerprint cards, he laid off the marijuana and so put the correct date down
-------------on March 24 and March 26, Agent Howlett was as high as Lt Day and so happily signed off on the notion that March 24 was March 15, and March 26 was March 24
-------------Lt Day later noticed and corrected his release date error (though noting that he had gotten the time notation correct), but somehow failed to notice (on the same form!) the error with the submission date
The prime question arising from all this is: What have you been smoking, Mr O'Meara?
What have I been smoking?
Look at your little scenario again Alan.
You've got Day testing the rods for fingerprints the Day after he released them to Howlett.
Howlett has taken the rods away and then Day tests them.
Snap out of it man.
Your notion that an elaborate hoax involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the WC and Mrs Paine took place to show why the rods were marked 275 and 276 is "on the edge", to say the least.
You still haven't explained why they felt the need to justify doing this just because, as you would have it, some random person wrote
some random numbers on the curtain rods (this, of course, is not the case, the curtain rods were marked for identification at Ruth Paine's house)
Why did they have to have the Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers for the rods the same as the numbers scrawled on the "TSBD rods" (lol)?
The rods are collected on the 23rd from Ruth Paine's house and marked 275 and 276
The fingerprint card shows they were tested on the 25th (you don't find it strange at all that in your scenario Day waits for 10 days before testing the rods. Are you saying that one minute the rods are important the next minute their not.?
The bottom copy of the document, the part in the official record, records a release date of 26th.
Ignore submission date:
Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th
-
Good grief, talk about missing the point!
The Oswald-Did-It 'investigators' had a very simple way of proving to the world that Mr Oswald had lied to Mr Frazier: ask Ms Paine about curtain rods........ take a look in her garage............ write up the damning result in an official report
None of this happened
Thumb1:
Come on Alan.
Oswald denied taking the rods.
You think it was high on the investigator's priority list to show Oswald lied to Frazier?
You think they didn't have enough on Oswald already?
It's safe to say it didn't cross anybody's mind that the curtain rod story was true.
You think the investigator's wasted one second trying to prove an alibi for Oswald that he denied himself?
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.
-
What have I been smoking?
Look at your little scenario again Alan.
You've got Day testing the rods for fingerprints the Day after he released them to Howlett.
Howlett has taken the rods away and then Day tests them.
Snap out of it man.
Your notion that an elaborate hoax involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the WC and Mrs Paine took place to show why the rods were marked 275 and 276 is "on the edge", to say the least.
You still haven't explained why they felt the need to justify doing this just because, as you would have it, some random person wrote
some random numbers on the curtain rods (this, of course, is not the case, the curtain rods were marked for identification at Ruth Paine's house)
Why did they have to have the Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers for the rods the same as the numbers scrawled on the "TSBD rods" (lol)?
The rods are collected on the 23rd from Ruth Paine's house and marked 275 and 276
The fingerprint card shows they were tested on the 25th (you don't find it strange at all that in your scenario Day waits for 10 days before testing the rods. Are you saying that one minute the rods are important the next minute their not.?
The bottom copy of the document, the part in the official record, records a release date of 26th.
Ignore submission date:
Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th
Ignore submission date:
Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th
Let's assume for a second this is true. How do you explain that Howlett and Day both signed for the release on the 24th?
And why didn't Howlett sign for the release on the 26th?
-
Come on Alan.
Oswald denied taking the rods.
You think it was high on the investigator's priority list to show Oswald lied to Frazier?
You think they didn't have enough on Oswald already?
It's safe to say it didn't cross anybody's mind that the curtain rod story was true.
You think the investigator's wasted one second trying to prove an alibi for Oswald that he denied himself?
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.
Indeed. And in the process anything exculpatory was ignored or dismissed.
-
What have I been smoking?
Look at your little scenario again Alan.
You've got Day testing the rods for fingerprints the Day after he released them to Howlett.
Howlett has taken the rods away and then Day tests them.
Snap out of it man.
Your notion that an elaborate hoax involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the WC and Mrs Paine took place to show why the rods were marked 275 and 276 is "on the edge", to say the least.
You still haven't explained why they felt the need to justify doing this just because, as you would have it, some random person wrote
some random numbers on the curtain rods (this, of course, is not the case, the curtain rods were marked for identification at Ruth Paine's house)
Why did they have to have the Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers for the rods the same as the numbers scrawled on the "TSBD rods" (lol)?
Lol, already explained, Mr O'Meara. The fact that you ignore my explanation merely tells us you can't come up with a rebuttal
The rods are collected on the 23rd from Ruth Paine's house and marked 275 and 276
The fingerprint card shows they were tested on the 25th (you don't find it strange at all that in your scenario Day waits for 10 days before testing the rods. Are you saying that one minute the rods are important the next minute their not.?
The bottom copy of the document, the part in the official record, records a release date of 26th.
Ignore submission date:
Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th
So, once again your mad solution to the problem posed by the submission date and the release date is:
---------------Ignore submission date
---------------Ignore release date
:D
-
Come on Alan.
Oswald denied taking the rods.
We don't know that for sure. Remember-------we're dealing with the same professional liars here who buried Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". You know, the guys whose devoted fanboy you are
You think it was high on the investigator's priority list to show Oswald lied to Frazier?
You think they didn't have enough on Oswald already?
It's safe to say it didn't cross anybody's mind that the curtain rod story was true.
You think the investigator's wasted one second trying to prove an alibi for Oswald that he denied himself?
What a silly question!
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.
Exactly-----------and so too is all your energy
-
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.
Indeed. And in the process anything exculpatory was ignored or dismissed.
Agreed
-
Lol, already explained, Mr O'Meara. The fact that you ignore my explanation merely tells us you can't come up with a rebuttal
It's not true Alan.
You have not explained why the elaborate hoax has to focus on the numbers scribbled on the TSBD rods.
The whole point of this pantomime, involving the Secret Service, the hierarchy of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department and Ruth Paine, is to number the rods found at Ruth Paine's house 275 and 276.
Why is it necessary to do this?
-
It's not true Alan.
You have not explained why the elaborate hoax has to focus on the numbers scribbled on the TSBD rods.
The whole point of this pantomime, involving the Secret Service, the hierarchy of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department and Ruth Paine, is to number the rods found at Ruth Paine's house 275 and 276.
Why is it necessary to do this?
Stop playing games, Mr O'Meara. Reply #856
-
Stop playing games, Mr O'Meara. Reply #856
I didn't realise you were being serious.
This elaborate hoax, involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police department and Ruth Paine, is committed because your imaginary TSBD employee saw these numbers written on the curtain rods. ::)
In order to explain how these numbers got there, this hoax (which only exists in your mind, it never actually took place) is committed in order to demonstrate these numbers are actually "Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers 275 and 276.
But the curtain rods were found by your imaginary TSBD employee before the hoax took place!
Think about that Alan.
The idea that the Secret Service felt the need it had to produce paperwork to satisfy this a civilian is ridiculous enough. But to suggest all these different agencies feel the need to put on this hoax to please this figment of your imagination is bordering on insanity.
If the imaginary employee already saw the numbers on the imaginary rods, how does this hoax clear that situation up?
(I feel embarrassed being dragged into this nonsense)
-
I didn't realise you were being serious.
This elaborate hoax, involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police department and Ruth Paine, is committed because your imaginary TSBD employee saw these numbers written on the curtain rods. ::)
In order to explain how these numbers got there, this hoax (which only exists in your mind, it never actually took place) is committed in order to demonstrate these numbers are actually "Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers 275 and 276.
Still waiting for your explanation of why the Ruth Paine Exhibit counting started at #270. It promises to be as funny as your truly hopeless explanation of the dates on the form ('Ignore them both!') :D
But the curtain rods were found by your imaginary TSBD employee before the hoax took place!
Think about that Alan.
The idea that the Secret Service felt the need it had to produce paperwork to satisfy this a civilian is ridiculous enough.
Why is it ridiculous? If the witness has been pressing the matter, it's exactly the smart move.
But to suggest all these different agencies feel the need to put on this hoax to please this figment of your imagination is bordering on insanity.
If the imaginary employee already saw the numbers on the imaginary rods, how does this hoax clear that situation up?
(I feel embarrassed being dragged into this nonsense)
Insurance against the witness' going public at some point in the future with talk of having found two curtain rods at the Depository marked 275 & 276. The fact that two curtain rods officially 'marked' Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 and 276 will feature in the publicly available Warren Volumes will make the witness sound like a plagiarizing fraud.
-
We don't know that for sure. Remember-------we're dealing with the same professional liars here who buried Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". You know, the guys whose devoted fanboy you are
What a silly question!
Exactly-----------and so too is all your energy
we're dealing with the same professional liars here who buried Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade".
Alan.... It's entirely possible that Lee did tell the interrogators that h went outside to watch the P. Parade after he gulped down his lunch in the Domino room..... Lee could easily have thought the the parade was still in progress when he finished his lunch....But that is not proof that there was any of the parade left when he went outside.
-
It has been suggested by (IIRC) Mr Anthony Marsh that Mr Oswald wanted heavier, darker curtains and realized such would need stronger rods
Alternatively! Mr Oswald, not wanting Mr Frazier to know his marital business, used the picking up of curtain rods (which, on this scenario, he didn't actually need) as a pretext for overnighting at Irving that Thursday. They were nothing more than a prop.
Cf:
Mr. JENNER - Was there any discussion that might serve to refresh your recollection, any discussion of the fact that Lee Oswald had come home or come to Irving in the first place on a Thursday afternoon, which is unusual, or that he had come home unannounced and without invitation, which also as you have testified was unusual? Wasn't there any discussion between you and Marina, speculation at least on your part as to why he was home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, there was discussion. I can't recall exactly what time in the evening it took place but I recall the content of the discussion.
Mr. JENNER - You tell us about it.
Mrs. PAINE - She suggested that he was making up the quarrel that they had had because of her attempt to reach him by telephone, and I agreed, concurred with that judgment of it.
Mr. JENNER - What was the attitude that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - He was very warm and friendly.
Mr. JENNER - Was there anything unusual about his attitude and conduct that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - Nothing except he went to bed a little earlier than he normally would have on a Sunday evening before work.
Thumb1:
-
Here we hear the lie.....Frazier claiming he did not go home after leaving the TSBD. Compare to his HSCA interview where he claimed more than once he went to his sister's home first.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2)
25 minute mark.
Frazier stated he went directly to the hospital and did not go home first in this interview.
-
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you form any opinions as you examined it, concerning the construction of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I looked at the bag and examined it, it struck me as being a homemade bag such as I could make. Occasionally I will have a need for something like this at home. Therefore, I will take some brown paper and a strip of tape home with me. Then when I get home I will fold the tape fold the paper rather--in the shape I need--and to seal it up I will tear strips of the sealing tape from the little piece I have.
Here we find that this tape has been torn at several places, such as one would do in an instance like that. Due to these torn edges, I was under the impression, from looking at the bag, that it was a homemade bag which someone had made at home and they did not have a tape dispenser which machine-cuts tape. Therefore, they had to tear it, which they did--or cut it, of course with a knife. And this is the case where pieces of tape were torn.
-
Friends, once again we marvel at what is on this document----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/elseyvJ.jpg)
No fewer than 8 days BEFORE two curtain rods were taken on the record from the Paine residence as part of Ms Ruth Paine's WC testimony, and marked Exhibits 275 and 276, two curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were formally submitted to Lieutenant Day's Crime Lab for fingerprint testing for Mr Oswald's prints. Amazing!
No less amazing is the numerical coincidence that the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
AND that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.
See the '275' and '276' on the document above? It would break the laws of temporality for these to refer to Commission Exhibit Nos.----------those won't be assigned for another 8 days. On the other hand, if we simply read the 5 and the 6 as raised, or with a decimal point missing, then what we have here are two curtain rods which have written (or printed) on them length markings: 27.5 inches & 27.6 inches, respectively.
The WC went to extraordinary lengths to contrive a way of assigning Exhibit Nos to two curtain rods that would match the length markings on two curtain rods found at the Depository.
Thumb1:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/elseyvJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2KgVDNy.jpg)
-
Question!
Why are there two different versions of this document?
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
Better question!
What crucial detail gets lost from the color original to the more faded black/white copy?
Possible answer!
The decimal point in 27.5
-
If rods were found by some TSBD employee , they were probably still in the paper bag they were carried in, since Oswald didn’t take the bag o rods with him when he left the TSBD to catch the bus or taxi or get in rambler station wagon driven by DC man
That bag probably had Oswalds prints in it, but the Fritz team decided not use the bag to frame Oswald
probably because:
A. The bag was probably only about 28” in length
B. The bag probably still had a mail address to Paines residence since those rods ( and blinds too) had been mail ordered by Mrs Paine and were left on a shelf in the garage still in that same bag.
Oswald probably just took the whole bag with rods AND blinds off the shelf early morning of Nov 23/63 and left to walk over to BW Frazier’s house so Mrs Paine wouldn’t see him carrying the package.
Why didn’t the speculative Person who found these rods come forward and declare such finding?
Probably because they met with a car accident like Lee Bowers soon after turning in the bag to the DPD?
-
Why didn’t the speculative Person who found these rods come forward and declare such finding?
They did--------the rods were turned over to the 'investigating' authorities
Probably because they met with a car accident like Lee Bowers soon after turning in the bag to the DPD?
No-----------they were shown this as proof that the matter had been 'thoroughly investigated':
(https://i.imgur.com/t2yXuBD.jpg)
If that person nevertheless at some point in the future were to come forward and talk about having found two rods marked '27.5' & '27.6' in the Depository after the assassination, then their claim could be dismissed as an 'obvious hoax' on the basis of the now publicly known fact that two rods taken from the Paine garage were marked as Commission Exhibits 275 & 276.
-
They did--------the rods were turned over to the 'investigating' authorities
No-----------they were shown this as proof that the matter had been 'thoroughly investigated':
(https://i.imgur.com/t2yXuBD.jpg)
If that person nevertheless at some point in the future were to come forward and talk about having found two rods marked '27.5' & '27.6' in the Depository after the assassination, then their claim could be dismissed as an 'obvious hoax' on the basis of the now publicly known fact that two rods taken from the Paine garage were marked as Commission Exhibits 275 & 276.
Not this debunked nonsense yet again! Why would the rods be marked 27.5 and 27.6? LOL. And there are no such decimal points. Those are the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the curtain rods removed from Paine's garage - 275 and 276. Unbelievable.
-
Not this debunked nonsense yet again! Why would the rods be marked 27.5 and 27.6?
Already explained, Mr Smith---------those were the exact length markings
LOL. And there are no such decimal points.
Oh but there is for '27.5'. The ink for '27.6' may simply not have transferred if Lt. Day was writing in haste
Those are the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the curtain rods removed from Paine's garage - 275 and 276. Unbelievable.
Unbelievable indeed that two curtain rods from the Paine garage would be
a) submitted to the lab
b) marked with those numbers
8 days before being
a) taken from the Paine garage
b) marked with those numbers.
What you or your Warren Gullible friends have never been able to explain, Mr Smith, is why the numbers 275 and 276 were assigned by the WC to the Paine garage curtain rods in the first place. Why those numbers? Hm? Have you got an answer?
Thought not! :D
-
Now! Let us reconstruct some of the steps.....
1. Two curtain rods marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6 are found in the Depository at some point after the assassination. The employee who finds them likely takes note of their appearance and of the markings, and likely mentions the discovery to several colleagues
2. The employee civic-mindedly brings the find to the attention of the 'investigating' authorities, who promise to look into the matter thoroughly
3. On the morning of 15 March the two rods are submitted to the Crime Lab by Agent Howlett for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Agent Howlett emerges with a B/W copy of the sign-in sheet that looks like this (alterations=erasures in the below image by me, A.F.):
(https://i.imgur.com/TwsLAfG.jpg)
4. Nine days later, Agent Howlett returns and the two rods are released back to him. He emerges with a copy of the form that now has had release details added:
(https://i.imgur.com/mqP1Tga.jpg)
5. This, however, is NOT the version of the form that will go into public evidence in the WC volumes. What the public will see will be this, with a different sign-out date, newly written (though identical) time and new signature from Lt. Day:
(https://i.imgur.com/OoEWjoV.png)
This new version has been created using not the (colored ink) original but a copy made 3/15/64. Here once again is what THAT copy would have looked like:
(https://i.imgur.com/TwsLAfG.jpg)
-
So we have two different release dates on two different versions of the form:
DATE A: 3/24/64
DATE B: 3/26/64
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
Well! The date we see on this curtain-rod-fingerprinting evidence card from Lt. Day just so happens to be sandwiched between the two dates above:
(https://i.imgur.com/aRcjJPW.jpg)
-
What you or your Warren Gullible friends have never been able to explain, Mr Smith, is why the numbers 275 and 276 were assigned by the WC to the Paine garage curtain rods in the first place. Why those numbers? Hm? Have you got an answer?
Thought not! :D
Let's help Mr Smith, shall we?
(https://i.imgur.com/biPW5OV.jpg)
Where did the number 270 come from as the number at which to start marking the RuthPaine Exhibits?
Well, I guess it's a little more subtle than Messrs Jenner & Howlett saying 'The heck with it, we'll just start with 275 and go straight for the damn curtain rods, which are the only reason we came all the way out here to Irving'..........
And remember! First thing tomorrow morning, the two curtain rods submitted to the crime lab 8 days ago will be formally released back to Agent Howlett----------yes, the selfsame man who is at this moment in the Paine garage in Irving solemnly 'receiving' two curtain rods on the record!
-
An outstanding find by the redoubtable Mr Pat Speer--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLf8KT75/Curtain-rods-date-PSpeer.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Here's his commentary (emphasis in bold mine, A.F.):
[...] Well, this led me to wonder if these rods weren't in fact some rods found in the depository, and if Oswald had actually brought some rods to work.. Upon further reading I realized that Oswald's landlady had told the FBI that she had in fact replaced a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room on the morning after the assassination. So this led me to wonder how Joe Ball handled this when he questioned her on 4-1-64. Well, he didn't. Although the FBI was asked to talk to Mrs. Johnson on 3-16-64, the FBI failed to forward their report on their interview with Mrs. Johnson, in which she admitted sh'd replaced a damaged curtain rod on the morning of the 23rd, till 4-2-64. Well, this made little sense. The commission asked the FBI to talk to the Johnsons. Did they really turn around and take their testimony before reading the FBI's report? And, if so, did they really fail to follow up on the contents of the FBI's report, after being told there had been a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room?
I then realized that every version of the FBI's report, in all the available files, had an anomaly. The date 4-1-64 had been changed to 4-2-64 on all the reports.
Well, this made me suspect that Ball knew about the damaged curtain rods when he spoke to the Johnsons on 4-1, and then roped the FBI into covering up his tracks.
Thumb1:
-
An outstanding find by the redoubtable Mr Pat Speer--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLf8KT75/Curtain-rods-date-PSpeer.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Here's his commentary (emphasis in bold mine, A.F.):
[...] Well, this led me to wonder if these rods weren't in fact some rods found in the depository, and if Oswald had actually brought some rods to work.. Upon further reading I realized that Oswald's landlady had told the FBI that she had in fact replaced a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room on the morning after the assassination. So this led me to wonder how Joe Ball handled this when he questioned her on 4-1-64. Well, he didn't. Although the FBI was asked to talk to Mrs. Johnson on 3-16-64, the FBI failed to forward their report on their interview with Mrs. Johnson, in which she admitted sh'd replaced a damaged curtain rod on the morning of the 23rd, till 4-2-64. Well, this made little sense. The commission asked the FBI to talk to the Johnsons. Did they really turn around and take their testimony before reading the FBI's report? And, if so, did they really fail to follow up on the contents of the FBI's report, after being told there had been a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room?
I then realized that every version of the FBI's report, in all the available files, had an anomaly. The date 4-1-64 had been changed to 4-2-64 on all the reports.
Well, this made me suspect that Ball knew about the damaged curtain rods when he spoke to the Johnsons on 4-1, and then roped the FBI into covering up his tracks.
Thumb1:
Interesting about the damaged curtain rod and then we have the transposed "2" over the "1".
-
Already explained, Mr Smith---------those were the exact length markings
Oh but there is for '27.5'. The ink for '27.6' may simply not have transferred if Lt. Day was writing in haste
Unreal. There are clearly no such decimal points. None. Anyone can look at the document and see that. Your fictional explanation for that is a great source of amusement, however (i.e. Day was writing in haste - HA HA HA). Comedy gold. And to suggest that it is just a remarkable coincidence the "length" of these curtain rods coincides exactly to the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods defies response. Again, though, if you believe this document proves a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, please forward this information to the NY Times for their assessment instead of posting it here over and over again. Get back to us with their response.
-
And to suggest that it is just a remarkable coincidence the "length" of these curtain rods coincides exactly to the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods defies response.
I fully agree, Mr Smith----------well said, sir! Thumb1:
-
I fully agree, Mr Smith----------well said, sir! Thumb1:
LOL. That's because you don't understand. It is humorous, though, that you attribute no decimal points to Day being in haste in writing the document. Of course, it is a completely baseless claim to suggest he was in "haste", but you apparently don't entertain the possibility of his getting the date wrong because he was in this same "haste."
When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?
-
LOL. That's because you don't understand. It is humorous, though, that you attribute no decimal points to Day being in haste in writing the document. Of course, it is a completely baseless claim to suggest he was in "haste", but you apparently don't entertain the possibility of his getting the date wrong because he was in this same "haste."
When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?
~Grin~
'The remarkable coincidence between the length of these curtain rods and the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods really triggers me, as does the fact that after 8 months I still have no answer to Ford's straightforward question about why the WC chose the number 270 to begin their Paine home exhibits'
:'(
-
When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?
Since when does a Trump-bot care what the New York Times thinks?
-
Why was this curtain rod sphere of interest ever developed in the 1st place?
If they were actually discovered in the TSBD ...why not just trash them?
Out of sight...out of mind
8)
-
Why was this curtain rod sphere of interest ever developed in the 1st place?
If they were actually discovered in the TSBD ...why not just trash them?
Out of sight...out of mind
8)
If they were discovered (as they surely were) by a Depository employee, then this option is risky. The employee might have shown it to fellow employees. They might be the kind of person who could go to the press about it if the 'investigating' authorities don't satisfy them that the matter has been properly looked into. Those 'investigators' framing Mr Oswald after the event do not have the luxury of working in a closed system-------there are real-world considerations that render the situation dynamic.
So what did they do? The sensible thing. They generated paperwork that could be shown to the person who found the rods at the Depository----------paperwork that 'showed' that the matter had been thoroughly looked into and there was nothing to see.
But more was needed by way of insurance against the person who found the rods causing a stink. And so a fiendish little plan was hatched to disappear the curtain rods found at the Depository into two curtain rods taken on-the-record from the Paine garage by the WC. Central to this little scam was the use of the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6. The Depository employee(s) had seen those digits on the curtain rods (precise length markings, possibly scribbled: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches), and could cite them if they started kicking up a stink; what better way to discredit them in advance by using those digits as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos.-------------"This person is inventing a story to make themselves feel important... They have gotten the numbers 275 and 276 from the Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos and misunderstood them as actual markings on the curtain rods. Unfortunately this case has attracted a lot of bogus claims." Quite clever really!
Mr Buell Wesley Frazier says he received an anonymous phone-call from a woman telling him that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository. The evidence is that this is exactly what happened.
-
So we have two different release dates on two different versions of the form:
DATE A: 3/24/64
DATE B: 3/26/64
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
This:
1. At some point after the assassination, a pair of white enamel curtain rods, each with the length marking 27.5 (=inches) on it, are discovered by an employee inside the Depository
2. The employee notifies the authorities about them and hands them over
3. On 15 March '64 these two rods are submitted to Lt. Day's Crime Scene Search Section, where they are to be tested for Mr. Oswald's prints
4. The description, in red pen, is written as follows: "2 curtain rods - white enamel (4 pcs) marked 27.5":
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR0s4n5j/Curtain-rods-275-only.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/W4JVTqkF/Curtain-rods-275-point.jpg)
Note not only the decimal point, but the fact that the 5 is raised
5. These two curtain rods are tested for Mr. Oswald's prints, and then Lt. Day releases them back to Agent Howlett at 7:50am on 24 March. He goes back to the witness with a copy of the submission/release form 'proving' that the matter has been looked into and resolved: the rods were not left by Mr. Oswald
6. Meanwhile, however, a plan has been in progress to turn these two rods into Ruth Paine Exhibits, with the assigned numbers 275 & 276. Lt. Day simply adds (at a noticeable distance away from the "27.5") "& 276" (no decimal point this time) using the same red pen:
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yDGPnss/Curtain-rods-275.jpg)
Tricky to get rid of the decimal point in 27.5, but they can at least make sure that the black-and-white copy version given to the WC is clean of it:
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
**
Looking forward to hearing the doubters offer an alternative explanation as to why the following number system was used:
(https://i.imgur.com/biPW5OV.jpg)
Where, pray, do you think the number 270 came from as the number at which to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
Thumb1:
-
This:
1. At some point after the assassination, a pair of white enamel curtain rods, each with the length marking 27.5 (=inches) on it, are discovered by an employee inside the Depository
2. The employee notifies the authorities about them and hands them over
3. On 15 March '64 these two rods are submitted to Lt. Day's Crime Scene Search Section, where they are to be tested for Mr. Oswald's prints
4. The description, in red pen, is written as follows: "2 curtain rods - white enamel (4 pcs) marked 27.5":
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR0s4n5j/Curtain-rods-275-only.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/W4JVTqkF/Curtain-rods-275-point.jpg)
Note not only the decimal point, but the fact that the 5 is raised
5. These two curtain rods are tested for Mr. Oswald's prints, and then Lt. Day releases them back to Agent Howlett at 7:50am on 24 March. He goes back to the witness with a copy of the submission/release form 'proving' that the matter has been looked into and resolved: the rods were not left by Mr. Oswald
6. Meanwhile, however, a plan has been in progress to turn these two rods into Ruth Paine Exhibits, with the assigned numbers 275 & 276. Lt. Day simply adds (at a noticeable distance away from the "27.5") "& 276" (no decimal point this time) using the same red pen:
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yDGPnss/Curtain-rods-275.jpg)
Tricky to get rid of the decimal point in 27.5, but they can at least make sure that the black-and-white copy version given to the WC is clean of it:
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
**
Looking forward to hearing the doubters offer an alternative explanation as to why the following number system was used:
(https://i.imgur.com/biPW5OV.jpg)
Where, pray, do you think the number 270 came from as the number at which to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
Thumb1:
Do you think the length of the first curtain rod is 27.5 inches but the second is 276 inches long? There is clearly no decimal point in 275 and there is none in 276 which you completely ignore. HA HA HA. Seek help.
-
Do you think the length of the first curtain rod is 27.5 inches but the second is 276 inches long?
Nope------but I do think you need to seek help with your reading skills! :D
There is clearly no decimal point in 275
:D
and there is none in 276 which you completely ignore.
:D
Not alone can Mr. Smith not read, he embarrasses himself further by NOT offering an explanation why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits!
He also wants us to think it's a pure freaky coincidence that----------------
a) the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
b) Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.
Like I say: :D :D :D
-
Nope------but I do think you need to seek help with your reading skills! :D
:D
:D
Not alone can Mr. Smith not read, he embarrasses himself further by NOT offering an explanation why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits!
He also wants us to think it's a pure freaky coincidence that----------------
a) the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
b) Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.
Like I say: :D :D :D
The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276." Again "marked". "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage. You wouldn't measure an object and then reference its length as being "marked" by the length. HA HA HA. Good grief. Do you have no shame?
-
The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276." Again "marked". "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.
:D
In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:
1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?
Oh, how the lowly have fallen!
:D
-
:D
In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:
1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?
Oh, how the lowly have fallen!
:D
Unreal. Let's go over this very slowly.
1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276. Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.
3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.
4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.
5) The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)
6) Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?
Lastly, there is an enormous logic fallacy to this conspiracy fantasy. It would have us believe that four months after successfully framing Oswald for the crime including debunking his story to Frazier that he carried curtain rods that morning (a story that Oswald himself denied he told Frazier) and instead had his rifle in the bag, that the authorities would on their own volition document and bring to light those very same curtain rods that they are tried so hard to suppress. To check for Oswald's prints! Wow. You should be ashamed.
-
Unreal. Let's go over this very slowly.
1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276. Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.
~Grin~
If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!
3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.
Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!
4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.
:D
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4JVTqkF/Curtain-rods-275-point.jpg)
The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)
Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! :D
6) Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?
And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!
:D
Let's have another go, shall we?
1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?
3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?
Thumb1:
-
~Grin~
If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!
Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!
:D
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4JVTqkF/Curtain-rods-275-point.jpg)
Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! :D
And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!
:D
Let's have another go, shall we?
1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?
3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?
Thumb1:
What are you babbling about here? There is no 27.5 on that document. None. And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276. Not 27.5 or even 27.6. It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA. There is no unit of length indicated on this document. It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home. If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.
-
What are you babbling about here? There is no 27.5 on that document. None. And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276. Not 27.5 or even 27.6. It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA. There is no unit of length indicated on this document. It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home. If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.
~Grin~
And what do you think your conclusion might be, Mr. Smith, if you weren't blind and mentally challenged?
-
And then we have the dates/times, and the fact that there are two different versions of the form:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYMYY1Wf/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
The Warren Gullibles' solution is that Lt. Day got BOTH dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable. To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative submission date to take the place of 15 March!
Here, by contrast, is a grown-up starting point for solving the conundrum presented by these forms:
A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.
So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form as it looked BEFORE "& 276" and the RELEASE sign-out details have been added. The TSBD person is therefore given a copy looking like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2WN99LT/Curtain-Rods-form-for-employee.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Now!
I hypothesize that this was initially the original limit to how far the 'investigating' authorities felt they could go to deal with the curtain rods that had been found in the Depository. Within a couple of days of 15 March (submission date), the witness had been furnished-----perhaps at his/her own insistence, and intimating that otherwise he/she would not let the matter rest-----with his/her copy of the document whose findings would, it was hoped, set his/her mind at rest: no LHO prints.
But!
The 'investigators' were still seriously worried about the matter, and put their heads together to see if they couldn't go better. There was still an unacceptably high chance that the Depository employee who found the curtain rods would, even after being fobbed off with the report, blab about those rods in a way highly dangerous to the official story that was being pursued with such grim determination. If that were to happen, the authorities would have to admit that, yes, two curtain rods were found in the Depository. Sure, they could engage in some damage limitation, but the scenario was still intolerable to have to think about.........
So!
Here's what they came up with:
Let's disappear those two curtain rods into two curtain rods whose 'finding' we can stage 'on the record' in the Paine garage.
And so, by the afternoon of Wed. March 18, Mr. Jenner of the WC is (during Ms. Paine's first testimony taking) talking of coming "to Mrs. Paine's home in Irving, Tex., sometime on Monday or Monday evening or if she finds it more convenient, on Tuesday of next week to inquire of her with a court reporter present relative to the curtain rod package".
That visit of Mr. Jenner and Agent Howlett to the Paine home happens on the evening of Monday, 23 March. They are there for one reason and one reason only: the curtain rods. But they go through an elaborate charade of examining, itemising and measuring lots of other secondary items, all to misdirect from what's really going on..
A pair of rods, each measuring "2 feet 3 1/2 inches" (=27.5!), is 'found' in the garage and taken by Agent Howlett----------------the same man who, eight days previously, had submitted two curtain rods to Lt. Day for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints! Crucially, the numbering of the Ruth Paine Exhibits starts with 270, a cute contrivance to have the two curtain rods end up being assigned the numbers 275 & 276:
(https://i.imgur.com/biPW5OV.jpg)
The original form is then 'corrected' by Lt. Day back at the lab by the addition of "& 276". Lt. Day keeps a COPY of the form at this stage of its evolution. My crude with-deletions version below reconstructs what this copy looks like as to content:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTW475qF/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-version-70-no-release-bw.jpg)
.
But why don't they change the submission date to a point in time AFTER the deposition at the Paine home? Why not change the submission to 9:45 a.m. on "3-24-64" instead of "3-15-64"? Indeed, why not just create a new form altogether, with no need to hide such a change?
Because a copy of the original form is in the hands of the Depository employee who found the curtain rods. And it contains the submission date "3-15-64"..
Agreeing to release that copy to the Depository employee made sense BEFORE the switcheroo scheme had been hatched. Now they see how regrettable an error it was.
But............. needs must. Quite simply, Lt. Day and Agent Howlett have no choice but to hope that nobody notices the date anomaly (which nobody will for over three decades...........)
The next time Agent Howlett comes by the crime lab, release date/time and signature/countersignature can be added to the original form.
Thumb1:
-
Next time Agent Howlett does drop by the crime lab, the original form finally finds its finished state, through the addition of
a) release date/time
b) Lt. Day's release signature
c) Agent Howlett's countersignature confirming receipt.
And what release date/time is chosen? 7.50 a.m. on "3-24-64":
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK1wMbbM/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-version-70.jpg)
Later-------------when asked to furnish a copy to the WC--------------Lt. Day decides to add a couple of days to the release date for realism. This way, the form contains not two but only one problematical date (which is the one that cannot be changed). And who the hell is going to see the original in the police files?
But how does Lt. Day change the release date? Well, thankfully he still has a copy of the form from when it was at THIS stage in its evolution:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTW475qF/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-version-70-no-release-bw.jpg)
He adds the new, improved release details to THIS COPY, and then creates a copy of that. Agent Howlett not being at hand, there is no countersignature from him.
Thus we get the otherwise perplexing differences in the two different versions of the form in evidence:
a) the original form buried in the DPD archives
b) the copy of a copy submitted to the WC
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
Thumb1:
-
So!
Those who wish to continue to declare that no curtain rods were found in the Depository need to answer some straightforward questions:
1. Why were two curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints 8 days before two curtain rods were taken from Ms. Paine's garage, and only released from the crime lab the morning after the taking of two curtain rods from Ms. Paine's garage?
2. Why do we have two different versions of the form, with
---------------different release dates
---------------different release signatures from Lt. Day
---------------release countersignature vs. no release countersignature from Agent Howlett?
3. Why did the WC choose the number 270 at which to begin numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits?
4. How do you explain away the incredible coincidence involving the digits 2-7-5:
----------------length of curtain rods: 27.5 inches
----------------"marked 27.5" on the crime lab form
----------------no. of first Ruth Paine Exhibit: 275?
I have offered an explanation for every one of these things. Can you offer a counter-explanation?
Thumb1: