BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Alan Ford]

My intent is to show how Oswald could have backed up his curtain rod story re Buell.
Bring the curtain rods and rifle together
Place the curtain rods in another bag once he got to work
Ask his boss if he can leave them in his office for the day

Good so far?

 

Nope, bad so far!

Your convoluted scenario puts a bag into Mr Oswald's hands that does not match Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's description.

My straightforward scenario, by contrast, puts a bag into Mr Oswald's hands that fits all the evidence. 

The only reason you won't countenance my scenario is that it is incompatible with the official story of what Mr Oswald brought to work that day.

Ho hum! 

[Colin Crow]

Note how Colin drags out the 'sheep' thing again. Ah, the old Appeal to Rebellion thing again

Sheep can be rebellious too......just make sure you have something worthwhile in the chamber.

[Alan Ford]

Friends, Ms Paine's March 19 WC testimony would have gone something like this had curtain rods truly been found still in place after the assassination:

Mr JENNER. Now Mrs Paine, I want to direct your attention to these two items. Can you tell me what they are?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, they are white curtain rods.
Mr JENNER. How many of them do you see here?
Mrs PAINE. Two.
Mr JENNER. I would ask you to think carefully before you answer this next question. Have you ever seen these curtain rods before?
Mrs PAINE. Why yes. They are mine.
Mr JENNER. Are you certain of that?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I am quite certain. They still have the old length measurements I marked in pencil. 27.5 and 27.6 inches.
Mr JENNER. Were these two curtain rods in your garage before the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Were they in your garage after the assassination?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. Did you check?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. When the officers were searching my garage they asked me whether we had any curtain rods and I showed them these.
Mr JENNER. Had you already checked yourself?
Mrs PAINE. Yes.
Mr JENNER. And the curtain rods had remained in place?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. They were right where I'd left them.
Mr JENNER. And did they remain in place after the officers had finished searching your garage?
Mrs PAINE. No. The officers took a photograph of them in place and then asked my permission to take them away.
Mr JENNER. Did you give them permission?
Mrs PAINE. Why, yes. Losing a pair of curtain rods would have been the least of my worries at that time, you know.
Mr JENNER. I appreciate how difficult this whole thing must have been for you, Mrs Paine. Now, you are aware that Oswald's friend Buell Wesley Frazier recalled being told by Oswald on the morning of the assassination that he had curtain rods in the bag he was carrying?
Mrs PAINE. Yes, I had heard that.
Mr JENNER. Is that why you went to check on the curtain rods yourself before the garage was searched?
Mrs PAINE. Yes. I wanted to check if Oswald really had taken them, like he was supposed to have said.
Mr JENNER. And you established that he hadn't?
Mrs PAINE. He hadn't.
Mr JENNER. Have you seen these curtain rods since the officers took them away that day?
Mrs PAINE. I have not.
Mr JENNER. We're going to mark these as Exhibit 435.

On top of this, we would have clear documentary evidence from November '63 onwards of these two curtain rods' having been found in Mrs Paine's garage right after Mr Oswald's arrest!

And much hay would most assuredly have been made in the press of the fact that the curtain rods which Mr Oswald had told his co-worker he had in the bag had in fact been found in Mrs Paine's garage!

But alas!

Instead we have evidence that tells a very different story:
-----------no curtain rods found in the garage after the assassination
-----------2 curtain rods suddenly showing up on the record in mid-March '64
-----------these rods being tested for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------2 curtain rods being 'found' in Mrs Paine's garage by the very agent who had submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting 8 days earlier!

And the Warren Gullibles want you to believe there's nothing untoward in any of this!

[Richard Smith]

Good to see you back, Mr Smith! 

Now!

I want you to take a long hard look at this. It is a calendar of March 1964, on which I have circled two dates:



In your considered opinion, Mr Smith, which of these two dates came first?:

15 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett for fingerprinting to the DPD Crime Scene Search Section)
or
23 March 1964 (the date when 2 curtain rods were found by Agent Howlett in Ms Ruth Paine's garage).

Thank you for your input! 

False premise again.  Particularly since you can't explain a narrative in which the authorities involved in a frame up of Oswald are the very same folks who bring these curtain rods to light.  Why would they do that?  LOL.  Very simple.  Sometime before March 15, it comes to the attention of the authorities during the course of the WC investigation that there were some curtain rods in the Paine garage.  You don't believe there could be any informal communications between the Paines and the WC investigators?  They do due diligence and check them and return.  Ruth Paine confirms these rods have been in her garage during the relevant time (i.e. from the date of the assassination until the authorities check).  Even that is predicated on the dates being correct (i.e. March 15 instead of 25).  The notion that somehow because March 15 comes before March 25 somehow proves these curtain rods were not found in the Paine garage is fall on the ground laughing material.  Paine herself confirms where these rods were kept.  Let me guess.  She is lying.  Another person to add to the "small" conspiracy of thousands. 

[Richard Smith]

why would they suddenly bring them to light and somehow convince Ruth Paine to lie about them being in her garage?

Good question Mr "Smith"....   The answer is:....  Because if they were in her garage then they cetainly couldn't have bveen in a 27 inch "FLIMSY" and "Crinkly" paper sack that lee carried that morning....  IOW...  The curtain rods in Paine's garage were a way to refute the dead patsy's story....

You are not following. The authorities don't have to account for any curtain rods because in the "official (i.e. real story) there weren't any taken to the TSBD.  It is Oswald's cover story for the rifle.   If they found curtain rods at the TSBD in a frame up, they just chuck them out and say they never found any.  They don't need to arrange an "alternative" scenario months after Oswald's death to account for them that somehow involves getting Ruth Paine to vouch for them.  LOL.  If there had been a conspiracy (and there wasn't), it is unfortunate they were brighter than others here.

[Richard Smith]

Bill, Oswald was a liar.....as we all are. What we seek is what really happened. To do that one must sort lies from truth and allow for innocent mistakes and errors along the way.

People, in particular those accused of murders, generally don't intentionally lie AGAINST their own self interest.  If Oswald had carried a bag that contained exculpatory, non-incriminating items like curtain rods, he not only would not have lied by denying it but screamed from the rooftops where to find it.  The notion that the "official" story is somehow more convoluted than the implications of a wild, alternative scenario in which Oswald lies against his own interest to further raise suspicion against himself, evidence is planted from multiple different sources, other evidence is covered up but then brought to light by the same authorities who suppressed it to begin with for no apparent reason just doesn't add up as a coherent narrative.  And claims like Oswald was just a liar to explain away his behavior is a very peculiar argument to advance the cause of his innocence.

[Alan Ford]

False premise again.  Particularly since you can't explain a narrative in which the authorities involved in a frame up of Oswald are the very same folks who bring these curtain rods to light.  Why would they do that?  LOL.  Very simple.  Sometime before March 15, it comes to the attention of the authorities during the course of the WC investigation that there were some curtain rods in the Paine garage.  You don't believe there could be any informal communications between the Paines and the WC investigators?  They do due diligence and check them and return.  Ruth Paine confirms these rods have been in her garage during the relevant time (i.e. from the date of the assassination until the authorities check).  Even that is predicated on the dates being correct (i.e. March 15 instead of 25).  The notion that somehow because March 15 comes before March 25 somehow proves these curtain rods were not found in the Paine garage is fall on the ground laughing material.  Paine herself confirms where these rods were kept.  Let me guess.  She is lying.  Another person to add to the "small" conspiracy of thousands.

Excellent response, Mr Smith, you and I are making tremendous progress together in sleuthing this matter out! 

You accept---and I commend you on your clarity in doing this, belated as it is  ---that 15 March fell before 23 March.

Therefore Agent Howlett, according to you, was only pretending to be shown the way to finding the 2 curtain rods in the garage on March 23. He was already perfectly familiar with these 2 rods, because only 8 days earlier he himself had submitted them for fingerprinting to the Crime Scene Search Section for fingerprinting! 

In other words, he was performing a charade in the Paine garage. Yes?

Now!

Together, in a spirit of cooperative research-mindedness, you and I must somehow explain the existence of not one but two versions of the official Crime Scene Search Section form, with two different release dates:



How, in your considered view, are we to account for the existence of not one but two versions of the official Crime Scene Search Section form?

And which of these two official versions do you believe is giving the correct 'specimen released' date and time?

Thank you!

[Alan Ford]

Friends,

What if my solution to the later, 26 March version of the form-------------

-------------is wrong? 

What if the 26 was not originally 21, but was indeed originally written 26?

It would point us to a different scenario-------and, some would say, a more elegant one.

Startling proposal!:

What if the original, red-inked version of the form is telling the plain truth?

It is, after all, a document to be taken very seriously indeed, for it is the one that bears the receipt signature of Agent Howlett-------the person who had submitted the rods in the first place.

What if 2 curtain rods were indeed submitted for fingerprinting on March 15--------and were not released until 9 days later, March 24?

What would the consequence be?