Buell Wesley Frazier, curtain rods and the lack of blaming Frazier- very interesting

[Gil Jesus]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If I'm not mistaken the testimony you cite from 3/21 is actually from 3/23. Ruth Paine testified in Washington before the commission on 3/21 I believe. Jenner then flew back to Dallas with her to continue the questioning in her garage with Howlett.

Call me stupid but I still don't get it. How can the curtain rods be in the Paine garage on 3/23 ( documented in 9 H 424 ) when the CSS form has them in the possession of the Dallas Police from 3/15 to 3/26 ?

Edited August 28, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Call me stupid but I still don't get it. How can the curtain rods be in the Paine garage on 3/23 ( documented in 9 H 424 ) when the CSS form has them in the possession of the Dallas Police from 3/15 to 3/26 ?

That's the point, Gil. 

IF the 3/15 date on the DPD form is correct--and we have every reason to believe it is--there would have to have been a second set of curtain rods. 

In his book Bugliosi claimed "Never mind. The 3/15 was just a mistake." But a few years back Alan Ford compared the original form as presented on the UNT website with the form as published by the WC, and found that the submission date was the same, but that the release date had been changed, and the person to whom it had been released had been removed. Well, this served to conceal that the set of rods received on the 15th were released before the second set of rods were even finger-printed, and that this set was released to the Secret Service, and not the WC. 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I tried to track down when the rods and this report were sent to Washington, and could find no paper trail. The FBI reported their existence in August, if I remember. But I could find nothing that indicated when and who sent this stuff to Washington, and how it came to be published by the WC.

That's an interesting topic in itself. You were probably more thorough, but I also came up empty with the MFF searches I did to try to find out how CE 1952 entered the record.
PS: The GIF in my previous post was made before I realized that you have a similar one on your website. I think mine is slightly higher quality, though.

[Mark Ulrik]

43 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Call me stupid but I still don't get it. How can the curtain rods be in the Paine garage on 3/23 ( documented in 9 H 424 ) when the CSS form has them in the possession of the Dallas Police from 3/15 to 3/26 ?

You're among friends, so there is no need to shout. Why don't you use a normal font size like the rest of us?

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That's the point, Gil. 

IF the 3/15 date on the DPD form is correct--and we have every reason to believe it is--there would have to have been a second set of curtain rods. 

In his book Bugliosi claimed "Never mind. The 3/15 was just a mistake." But a few years back Alan Ford compared the original form as presented on the UNT website with the form as published by the WC, and found that the submission date was the same, but that the release date had been changed, and the person to whom it had been released had been removed. Well, this served to conceal that the set of rods received on the 15th were released before the second set of rods were even finger-printed, and that this set was released to the Secret Service, and not the WC. 

 

Yeah that was my thought too. If you put the two forms side-by-side, it looks like they're indentical up to the signature of Lt. Day. Then everything changes with the release, with the 3/24 release signed by J. Howlett and the 3/26 release without a signature. Sure looks like somebody's hiding something.

Looks like they copied the form before they released the first set of rods and used the same form for the release of the second of rods. It becomes more evident when your compare the release sections side by side.

It's obvious that they have been signed at different times. One has a signature of Howlett, one doesn't. They have different dates. The "750" isn't the same and the "a" touches the line on one but not the other. And the "C" on J.C. is closed on one and has a loop at the top of the other.

It's obvious that this is the same form signed at two different times, possibly by two different people.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

 

 

Now, I don't know, but what else happened on sunday, march 15, 1964 ?   A number of things where being double checked it seems

Edited September 1, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
Pictures removed to save space

[David Von Pein]

It's downright silly for conspiracy theorists to suggest that the FBI and/or DPD and/or Warren Commission "faked" or "doctored" this version of CE1952 in order to fool the American people into believing that the fingerprint check that was done on some curtain rods was done after Ruth Paine's curtain rods were submitted as evidence on March 23rd. And that's because the alleged "fake" document still includes the "March 15" date at the top.

Therefore, what good did this alleged "fakery" accomplish?

Did the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald screw up big-time when they failed to change the March 15 date to March 23 or March 24? Or could it be that the conspiracy theorists are (once again) trying to make something out of nothing?

 

[Allen Lowe]

On 8/26/2022 at 7:17 PM, David Von Pein said:

I think it's you who have missed the point.

That point being (of course)....

The package that Lee Oswald carried into the TSBD on 11/22 did not contain any curtain rods, and Oswald lied to Buell Frazier when he (Oswald) said the package did contain curtain rods. And the fact that Oswald told such a blatant lie to Frazier (and then told another blatant lie to the police when he denied ever saying anything at all about "curtain rods" to Frazier) is extremely powerful circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.

sorry Dave; you not only missed the original point but you missed the next point which is, as someone said earlier, Oswald wouldn't be making plans to move if he was also planning to murder the president. With friends like you, the LN'ers are in deep trouble.

[David Von Pein]

31 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

sorry Dave; you not only missed the original point but you missed the next point which is, as someone said earlier, Oswald wouldn't be making plans to move if he was also planning to murder the president.

It looks like you've failed to understand it for a second time. Wanna go for the hat trick?

Hint:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's downright silly for conspiracy theorists to suggest that the FBI and/or DPD and/or Warren Commission "faked" or "doctored" this version of CE1952 in order to fool the American people into believing that the fingerprint check that was done on some curtain rods was done after Ruth Paine's curtain rods were submitted as evidence on March 23rd. And that's because the alleged "fake" document still includes the "March 15" date at the top.

Therefore, what good did this alleged "fakery" accomplish?

Did the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald screw up big-time when they failed to change the March 15 date to March 23 or March 24? Or could it be that the conspiracy theorists are (once again) trying to make something out of nothing?

 

Oh please. This has already been addressed. Day signed both versions of the form. Different signatures. Upon signing the second form he may not have realized that the submission date was incorrect. 

But you're right. sorta. Upon further reflection it seems obvious the second form with the release date of 3-26 was a carbon copy of the first form...separated off before the first set of rods were released to Howlett on 3-24. Day then used this carbon as the submission form for a second set of rods...which he released on 3-26. 

In any event, the result is the same. There were two sets of rods.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's downright silly for conspiracy theorists to suggest that the FBI and/or DPD and/or Warren Commission "faked" or "doctored" this version of CE1952 in order to fool the American people into believing that the fingerprint check that was done on some curtain rods was done after Ruth Paine's curtain rods were submitted as evidence on March 23rd. And that's because the alleged "fake" document still includes the "March 15" date at the top.

Therefore, what good did this alleged "fakery" accomplish?

Did the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald screw up big-time when they failed to change the March 15 date to March 23 or March 24? Or could it be that the conspiracy theorists are (once again) trying to make something out of nothing?

 

I don’t know David. Pat provides a very plausible motive for changing the release information. The original form reflects that the rods were released to Howlett before the Paine rods were even fingerprinted. The Paine rods were also released to the WC, not Howlett. Why else would they change that info? 

If the DPD could make as massive and ridiculous of a screw-up as the 3/15 date, as you propose, is it not just as likely that whoever altered the form (and it was indisputably altered) could have not known when the “official” rods were supposed to have entered police custody, or just not cared since they figured no one would ever notice?

As for the 3/15 date not being changed too, Gil provided a plausible explanation. The alterations on the form look like they were done on a copy of the form that was made prior to the 3/24 release. The Paine rods supposedly were obtained on the 23rd - which gives us two possible scenarios: 

1.) The form was routinely copied, and someone decided “oh crap, I better use the copy to show release of this second set of rods to the WC”.

2.) The form was copied when the new rods came in on the 23rd with the specific intent of concealing the first set of rods. 

In both scenarios, the 3/15 date was already on the form, and the failure to change it may reflect utility, stupidity, ambivalence, or all of the above. 

The point is that your theory of an innocent explanation for this very suspiciously and blatantly altered document can also be used as an “innocent” explanation for the failure to alter the 3/15 date. 

Now that we have the original form, you can’t just hand-wave away the possibility of a second set of rods like Bugliosi. An objective look at the evidence suggests that the scenario being proposed by Pat has a very real probability of being true, and you can’t debunk it just by feigning outrage at the thought of the DPD doing something shady. You might have a better case if the the DPD was incorruptible and above fabricating evidence, but they did this kind of thing all time.  

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Now that we have the original form, you can’t just hand-wave away the possibility of a second set of rods like Bugliosi. An objective look at the evidence suggests that the scenario being proposed by Pat has a very real probability of being true, and you can’t debunk it just by feigning outrage at the thought of the DPD doing something shady.  

And then they decided to retain the original document, instead of deep-sixing it. Right? Why would they retain it, when they could have just as easily destroyed that unwanted piece of paper so that nobody would ever see it again?

That same question -- Why would the plotters/cover-uppers retain this original document? -- can be asked when discussing other allegedly "suspicious" documents as well. And the fact that such original documents even exist now for us to examine is, IMO, a strong indication that those documents are not the sinister and conspiratorial documents that many CTers suspect they are. For if they truly were signs of an actual cover-up, you've got to ask: Why on Earth did these guys leave behind evidence of their wrong-doing?

Don't you ever want to ask that question yourself, Tom?

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And then they decided to retain the original document, instead of deep-sixing it. Right? Why would they retain it?

That same question -- Why would the plotters/cover-uppers retain this document? -- can be asked when discussing other allegedly "suspicious" documents as well. And the fact that such original documents even exist now for us to examine is, IMO, a strong indication that those documents are not the sinister and conspiratorial documents that many CTers suspect they are. For if they truly were signs of an actual cover-up, you've got to ask: Why on Earth did these guys leave behind evidence of their wrong-doing?

Don't you ever want to ask that question yourself, Tom?

 

The original form was not released to the WC, and was never seen by anyone until fairly recently when the DPD archives were released. This isn’t that hard to understand.

They never thought anyone would ever see it. 

[Mark Ulrik]

51 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Upon further reflection it seems obvious the second form with the release date of 3-26 was a carbon copy of the first form...

Thank you. Yes, the DPD obviously kept the original (with the colorful ink).

[David Von Pein]

10 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The original form was not released to the WC, and was never seen by anyone until fairly recently when the DPD archives were released. This isn’t that hard to understand.

They never thought anyone would ever see it. 

And I guess all the trash cans at City Hall were too full. Maybe that's the explanation for why those dastardly guys at the Dallas Police Department just refused to get rid of something that they really should have gotten rid of (if, that is, they were truly the cover-up artists that CTers make them out to be).

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Von Pein