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

[Tom Gram]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

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).

They obviously weren’t exactly cover up “artists”, since the DPD got caught fabricating evidence, and suppressing exculpatory evidence in other cases throughout the years. They were just corrupt and would do whatever necessary to nail their suspect.

Lt. Day, assuming that’s who altered the document since he signed it twice, was clearly no evil genius - as Pat and others have shown: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day

You still haven’t given an innocent explanation for the two different release dates, and disappearance of Howlett’s signature on the form, which clearly reflects  that Howlett took a set of rods from the DPD on the 24th, before the Paine rods were fingerprinted. 

You asked for plausible explanations, which I provided, for inconsistencies you perceive in the idea of a cover-up. I think it’s reasonable to ask for a plausible innocent explanation for why the DPD submitted a form with a later release date and without Howlett’s signature to the WC. 

[David Von Pein]

22 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You asked for plausible explanations, which I provided, for inconsistencies you perceive in the idea of a cover-up. I think it’s reasonable to ask for a plausible innocent explanation for why the DPD submitted a form with a later release date and without Howlett’s signature to the WC. 

I haven't the slightest idea, Tom.

But in order for me to believe that this type of "doctoring" of reports was shady in some fashion, I think that CTers should offer up a better explanation for why the DPD didn't simply get rid of the document that they didn't want anybody to find out about.

And the "They never thought anyone would ever see it"  excuse that you offered up previously just isn't going to cut it (IMO).

To reiterate what I think is a very good point ---- The fact that documents like the one we're discussing in this thread even exist in this year of 2022 is, in my view, a pretty good indication that those documents were not being created and utilized by the authorities in any sinister or devious way.

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I haven't the slightest idea, Tom.

But in order for me to believe that this type of "doctoring" of reports was shady in some fashion, I think that CTers should offer up a better explanation for why the DPD didn't simply get rid of the document that they didn't want anybody to find out about.

And the "They never thought anyone would ever see it"  excuse that you offered up previously just isn't going to cut it (IMO).

To reiterate what I think is a very good point ---- The fact that documents like the one we're discussing in this thread even exist in this year of 2022 is, in my view, a pretty good indication that those documents were not being created and utilized by the authorities in any sinister or devious way.

I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment. The DPD got caught fabricating and suppressing evidence throughout the years, and likely thought their JFK archive would never be released - and it wouldn’t have been were it not for Oliver Stone’s movie and the ARRB.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/

I’ll add another possible reason though. The original form may have been kept as a CYA contingency if other evidence slipped out, by the Secret Service for example, about the second set of rods. The DPD looks to have released a set of curtain rods to Howlett, and they could not have predicted what he would ultimately do or say. 

[Joe Bauer]

DVP, obviously you feel LHO did shoot at ( and hit and kill ) JFK at 12:30 PM on 11,22,1963.

You have no doubts at all about the final official WC LHO lone gunman story line?

That Oswald had absolutely no connection to others in his actions?

That 1.25 an hour earning LHO all on his own planned and successfully carried out a world shaking remarkable 7 inch wide moving target bullseye shooting feat that defeated an army of JFK security planning and protecting forces by simply doing the following:

Getting his cheap rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage and breaking it down and wrapping and taping it up in brown bag paper in a way that she ( and his wife Marina ) would be unaware because they were asleep in another room in her tiny home at that exact time.

Placing the now wrapped rifle in a spot where Ruth and Marina would not see it before hand, unless he finished wrapping it up at the very last coffee drinking second before he walked out the door to Buell Frazier's house.

He risked Frazier seeing the unusually long package on the back seat which he did.

Then upon arriving at the TXSBD Oswald again risks someone seeing him carry into the building something that looks unlike a lunch bag.

He immediately goes directly up to the 6th floor and finds some place to hide the rifle where no one could accidently come across it before he goes up at lunch time to build his book box walled in sniper's perch.

During that half hour perch building and gun reassembling time, he gets ready testing his site, aim, gun positioning and who knows what else.

Then after JFK's limo passes him and begins a downward incline driving farther away by the second, he sticks the barrel of his rifle out of the window and starts blasting away with ear blasting booms that can be heard by hundreds just below him and even more blocks away.

Oswald finally gets it right on his third shot and begins a 9 second 100 yard dash out and off of the floor ( tossing his rifle into some book stacks at the same time) races down 4 flights of stairs with not one fellow employee seeing him...walks into the 2nd floor lunch room to quench his thirst with a machine dropped can of Coke ( or Doctor Pepper which was my favorite) and calmly stands there sipping this even when big frantic DPD officer Marion L. Baker burst in and aims his big gun at him until Roy Truly tells Baker - ahh he ain't nobody.

Then it's on down to the building front lobby where Oswald guides future nationally known TV reporter Robert MacNeil to a pay phone...then out the door to a bus stop and soon there after a 95 cent cab ride ( Oswald generously told the taxi driver to keep the 5 cents change from a dollar bill ) home.

Just another day at work?

I agree that Oswald rushing into his room at mid work-day and arming himself and rushing out again with no logical reason or place to go looks guilty as hell. 

I believe someone knew in advance what Oswald was going to do that day.

And that they did things to allow it to happen.

No stationing of armed binocular equipped officers on larger downtown Dallas rooftops.

No placing of even one binocular and radio equipped officer per block on the ground scanning open higher floor windows while JFK was driving directly underneath them.

Not one officer placed between the TXSBD and railway overpass in the entire area behind the long grassy knoll stretch full of perfect fence and tree canopy hiding sniper shooting areas?

Not one security agency person thought about checking on FBI well known pro-Castro, Russia defecting Oswald and his work location right above JFK's slowing limo right during the motorcade?

And the violating of basic Presidential security motorcade protocols of no sharp angle, limo slowing turns like occurred twice in front of the TXSBD?

And the ease of which Jack Ruby was able to get a deadly shot into Oswald's gut right inside the DPD building?

No, nothing here folks.

Just a rage filled minimum wage book stacker who got lucky and made an incredible expert marksman level bulls eye shot with one of the cheapest rifles available and then amongst hundreds of frantic bee hive disturbed, trigger happy lawmen and scared bystanders simply walks through them to hop a bus and then catch a cab to go home and change.

Not one doubt DVP about all this happening without someone else's foreknowledge or assistance at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Gil Jesus]

36 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment. The DPD got caught fabricating and suppressing evidence throughout the years, and likely thought their JFK archive would never be released - and it wouldn’t have been were it not for Oliver Stone’s movie and the ARRB.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/

I’ll add another possible reason though. The original form may have been kept as a CYA contingency if other evidence slipped out, by the Secret Service for example, about the second set of rods. The DPD looks to have released a set of curtain rods to Howlett, and they could not have predicted what he would ultimately do or say. 

Tom, there's another issue with the curtain rods: why the Dallas Police never contacted Ruth Paine about Oswald getting rods from her garage. They had Frazier saying Oswald told him he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods and brought them to work on the 22nd and Oswald denying he said that. 

So why didn't they ask Mrs, Paine about the curtain rods ?

That's what you would do in a normal investigation, go to where he would have got them from and interview Mrs. Paine. Why didn't they do that ?

 

[Ian Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Tom, there's another issue with the curtain rods: why the Dallas Police never contacted Ruth Paine about Oswald getting rods from her garage. They had Frazier saying Oswald told him he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods and brought them to work on the 22nd and Oswald denying he said that. 

So why didn't they ask Mrs, Paine about the curtain rods ?

That's what you would do in a normal investigation, go to where he would have got them from and interview Mrs. Paine. Why didn't they do that ?

 

They just plain forgot...yet another easy mistake to make...😂

[Guest]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I haven't the slightest idea, Tom.

But in order for me to believe that this type of "doctoring" of reports was shady in some fashion, I think that CTers should offer up a better explanation for why the DPD didn't simply get rid of the document that they didn't want anybody to find out about.

And the "They never thought anyone would ever see it"  excuse that you offered up previously just isn't going to cut it (IMO).

To reiterate what I think is a very good point ---- The fact that documents like the one we're discussing in this thread even exist in this year of 2022 is, in my view, a pretty good indication that those documents were not being created and utilized by the authorities in any sinister or devious way.

For all I know these documents would have been noted in logs and registers.  Those registers usually are in the archives but in general not published (because they are about a lot of cases o/c).  Now, I don't know how it worked in the US, but I know most european government agencies have those registers, police will have daily records, etc. Depending on what type of document it was it would be noted in the inside of the cover or in a seperate register.  Incomming originals going in the file  (or subfile, etc), as would copies of outgoing documents (file, subfile, etc).  One only needed to check the log to see if a certain document was in it or not.  And it better be in it when it was registered...  Again, I do not know about the US, I don't know the administrative rules applicable there. And I do realize the enormous amount of doc's involved in the JFKA (all the more reason to keep track of doc's in file registers, logs, etc).  Could be the local police was not very strict (no idea), but I'm pretty sure the FBI and CIA would work that way.   

Another reason to keep such documents, there's always this other guy... when the doc is made up one doesn't know how the case will proceed... It's like always in the government, yep you can throw it away, just make a copy before you do...

   

[Mark Ulrik]

As hinted at in my first post, it was not uncommon for the DPD to create copies and for each copy to lead its own separate live, with some notations being added later and possibly by different people. I did a search for the term "form" on the UNT site, and these copies of the same CSS form were the first hits:

These appear to be (1) the original form with # and release info added after copies were created, (2) a carbon copy with # added, and (3) a Xerox copy of (2).
There are no date or signature discrepancies here, so it may not be the greatest example, but I think it shows an inclination by the police to treat these copies as working documents rather than untouchable evidence.
Btw, the exhibit after CE 1952 is an FBI report dated 6/10/64, so assuming the WC received the copy of the fingerprint report about the same time, there was plenty of time for Day to forget dates, etc.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I haven't the slightest idea, Tom.

But in order for me to believe that this type of "doctoring" of reports was shady in some fashion, I think that CTers should offer up a better explanation for why the DPD didn't simply get rid of the document that they didn't want anybody to find out about.

And the "They never thought anyone would ever see it"  excuse that you offered up previously just isn't going to cut it (IMO).

To reiterate what I think is a very good point ---- The fact that documents like the one we're discussing in this thread even exist in this year of 2022 is, in my view, a pretty good indication that those documents were not being created and utilized by the authorities in any sinister or devious way.

You really need to look at the context, David. The DPD was not accustomed to anyone questioning their integrity. As a result they were quite sloppy in some of their fabrications. Lt. Day, for example, testified that HE tore a piece of cardboard containing a palm print from Box D, and signed it that night. This is what he told the WC in Washington. Apparently he didn't realize that Studebaker had already told the commission's staff in Dallas that he was the one who'd tore the cardboard from the box and signed it. And apparently Day didn't realize that the DPD had already provided the FBI and WC with photos taken on the 25th which proved Studebaker had signed the piece of cardboard, and not Day. The man lied and lied with impunity. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

For all I know these documents would have been noted in logs and registers.  Those registers usually are in the archives but in general not published (because they are about a lot of cases o/c).  Now, I don't know how it worked in the US, but I know most european government agencies have those registers, police will have daily records, etc. Depending on what type of document it was it would be noted in the inside of the cover or in a seperate register.  Incomming originals going in the file  (or subfile, etc), as would copies of outgoing documents (file, subfile, etc).  One only needed to check the log to see if a certain document was in it or not.  And it better be in it when it was registered...  Again, I do not know about the US, I don't know the administrative rules applicable there. And I do realize the enormous amount of doc's involved in the JFKA (all the more reason to keep track of doc's in file registers, logs, etc).  Could be the local police was not very strict (no idea), but I'm pretty sure the FBI and CIA would work that way.   

Another reason to keep such documents, there's always this other guy... when the doc is made up one doesn't know how the case will proceed... It's like always in the government, yep you can throw it away, just make a copy before you do...

   

This is just an example to be found in the archives of what I was talking about :

RG 272: Records of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy

• Entry 03: Register of Letters Received (Incoming Mail Log), 1963-64
  1 Box

As said, you would have such registers for the different documents going in/out.  Often also used to see if a response was received,  follow-up was needed, etc.     

Edited August 28, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

As hinted at in my first post, it was not uncommon for the DPD to create copies and for each copy to lead its own separate live, with some notations being added later and possibly by different people. I did a search for the term "form" on the UNT site, and these copies of the same CSS form were the first hits:

These appear to be (1) the original form with # and release info added after copies were created, (2) a carbon copy with # added, and (3) a Xerox copy of (2).
There are no date or signature discrepancies here, so it may not be the greatest example, but I think it shows an inclination by the police to treat these copies as working documents rather than untouchable evidence.
Btw, the exhibit after CE 1952 is an FBI report dated 6/10/64, so assuming the WC received the copy of the fingerprint report about the same time, there was plenty of time for Day to forget dates, etc.

So it looks like the DPD did create "inventory copies" of CSS forms before the evidence was released - which goes along with option 1 in my previous comment to David:

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”.

The original form has Howlett's signature and the date 3/24/64 on it, which reflects that a set of curtain rods was released to Howlett by Day on that date. It's very hard to believe that two dates plus Howlett's signature were all mistakes, but let's go with it for a minute.

First order of business is the signature. Howlett is a human being who had to be there to sign the form, so the only way the "corrections" make sense as mistakes is if: 1) Day released the rods to the Howlett on the 26th; 2) Howlett gave the rods to the WC, but there is no paper trail reflecting that transaction; and 3) Day realized the mistake when Howlett wasn't around to sign the form again, and said screw it. 

I'd assume the proper procedure would be to cross out and initial the original form with the corrections, not sign a copy - but maybe Day thought the WC wouldn't want a form that was marked up to hell and was too lazy to correct the original. 

We also have an alternate scenario, which eliminates a couple mistakes, but requires even more speculation:

1. The 3/15 date was an egregious 8-day mistake that went unnoticed and uncorrected by everyone. Same deal here. 

2. The Paine curtain rods obtained on the 23rd were released to Howlett on the 24th, then returned to the DPD so they could be tested for fingerprints on the 25th. 

3. We are either missing the form for Howlett returning the rods, or a form was never created.

4. Either way, for whatever reason, Day signed the copy to reflect release of the rods to the WC on the 26th. 

That's my best attempt at coming up with an innocent explanation for all this. Both scenarios are such a trainwreck of incompetence and speculation that I think it's pretty reasonable to be a bit skeptical.

Basically, I think Occam's razor supports Pat's theory of a second set of rods turned in by Howlett on the 15th, and released back to him on the 24th. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/28/2022 at 12:02 PM, David Von Pein said:

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?

You are avoiding the main point and its implications.

If the original document had been destroyed, it would be much harder to prove that the document was altered, and you would argue that there was no evidence of a previous version of the document. 

Lone-gunman theorists frequently argue that such a massive cover-up could not succeed because someone would have talked and/or because incriminating evidence would be overlooked and would eventually surface. Yet, when people who had knowledge of the plot and/or the cover-up have talked, WC apologists have looked for every reason to disbelieve them; and when overlooked incriminating evidence surfaces or is uncovered, WC apologists argue that no plotters would have been dumb enough to leave such evidence behind, and they avoid dealing with the implications of the incriminating evidence. 

Yet, you folks never apply this same logic to alleged lone-gunman evidence. You ask us to believe that the same man who allegedly took the time to so carefully hide the alleged murder weapon supposedly left behind his three spent cartridges in plain view right next to the window. Indeed, in your scenario, this same man had pictures taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then gave the police the location where they would later allegedly find the pictures. One would logically think that any man who was going to try to shoot JFK the next day would have ensured that such incredibly damning photographs were destroyed the night before.

To top it all off, you ask us to believe that this same man, instead of buying a rifle and a pistol at a local gun store and leaving no paper trail, bought his weapons via mail order and thus created a paper trail that could enable authorities to trace both weapons back to him. He was even kind of enough to carry a fake ID card in the name that he allegedly used to buy the rifle and the pistol. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The same man who allegedly took the time to so carefully hide the alleged murder weapon supposedly left behind his three spent cartridges in plain view right next to the window.

Lt. Day was given the envelope later that evening, it contained only two cases, the third had been removed by Cpt. Fritz and was being held by him.  Day marked the two remaining cases with his initials and forwarded them to the FBI lab.  These two cases were subsequently given FBI designations C7 and C38 and Commission Exhibit Nos 544 and 545.  Both of these cases had marks identified as having been produced by the chamber of the Carcano rifle.  One of them had a set of marks identified as having been produced by the magazine follower, (the spring-tensioned lever that presses up the last cartridge in the clip) of the Carcano, while the other showed marks that could have come only from the bolt of the Carcano.  Both of these cases showed marks indicating that each had been loaded into a weapon (not necessarily Oswald's) at least twice. 

The remaining cartridge case (designated C6 and CE543 differed from the other two in a number of respects.  It was kept by the DPD until the FBI demanded it from Capt. Fritz on Nov. 28th  It's most astonishing characteristic is a sharp dent in the lip of such magnitude to prevent the fitting of a projectile in the opening.  In it's present condition it could not have been fired in any rifle on 22nd November.  The suggestion is that CE543 was never fired , but was dropped by one of the assassins as a means of throwing the subsequent investigation off the track and/or setting up the 'patsy'.  Certain other features of CE543 urge a conclusion even more strongly.  Marks found on the dented case indicated that it had been loaded in and extracted from a weapon at least three times.  In addition, it had three sets of marks on the base that were not found on the others or on any of the numerous test cartridges obtained from Oswald's rifle. 

A ballistics expert testified that these anomalous marks were possibly caused by a dry firing run-that is, by inserting the empty cartridge case in the breach while practising with the rifle.  Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald's rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower.  Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip, a position that must have been occupied on 22nd November not by the dented case but by the live round subsequently found in the chamber.  Thus, unlike the other two cases that bear marks from the chamber and bolt of Oswald's rifle, the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on 22nd November.

All this excites our suspicion with respect to CE543, the dented cartridge case.  What is most surprising- perhaps conclusive-about this cartridge case is that it lacks a characteristic impression along the side exhibited in one form or other by all the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of Oswald's rifle. 

Apologies for bumping the thread.

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Lt. Day was given the envelope later that evening, it contained only two cases, the third had been removed by Cpt. Fritz and was being held by him.  Day marked the two remaining cases with his initials and forwarded them to the FBI lab.  These two cases were subsequently given FBI designations C7 and C38 and Commission Exhibit Nos 544 and 545.  Both of these cases had marks identified as having been produced by the chamber of the Carcano rifle.  One of them had a set of marks identified as having been produced by the magazine follower, (the spring-tensioned lever that presses up the last cartridge in the clip) of the Carcano, while the other showed marks that could have come only from the bolt of the Carcano.  Both of these cases showed marks indicating that each had been loaded into a weapon (not necessarily Oswald's) at least twice. 

The remaining cartridge case (designated C6 and CE543 differed from the other two in a number of respects.  It was kept by the DPD until the FBI demanded it from Capt. Fritz on Nov. 28th  It's most astonishing characteristic is a sharp dent in the lip of such magnitude to prevent the fitting of a projectile in the opening.  In it's present condition it could not have been fired in any rifle on 22nd November.  The suggestion is that CE543 was never fired , but was dropped by one of the assassins as a means of throwing the subsequent investigation off the track and/or setting up the 'patsy'.  Certain other features of CE543 urge a conclusion even more strongly.  Marks found on the dented case indicated that it had been loaded in and extracted from a weapon at least three times.  In addition, it had three sets of marks on the base that were not found on the others or on any of the numerous test cartridges obtained from Oswald's rifle. 

A ballistics expert testified that these anomalous marks were possibly caused by a dry firing run-that is, by inserting the empty cartridge case in the breach while practising with the rifle.  Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald's rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower.  Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip, a position that must have been occupied on 22nd November not by the dented case but by the live round subsequently found in the chamber.  Thus, unlike the other two cases that bear marks from the chamber and bolt of Oswald's rifle, the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on 22nd November.

All this excites our suspicion with respect to CE543, the dented cartridge case.  What is most surprising- perhaps conclusive-about this cartridge case is that it lacks a characteristic impression along the side exhibited in one form or other by all the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of Oswald's rifle. 

Apologies for bumping the thread.

Oh, I agree with you about the conflict about the number of cartridge cases and the dented cartridge. I was repeating the lone-gunman story regarding the spent cartridges. I've written an article about the dented case, and I agree that it is solid evidence against the lone-gunman theory.

Anyway, I think Pat has demonstrated beyond any honest, credible doubt that certain authorities engaged in fraud in their handling of the evidence relating to curtain rods. Equally important, this is another example of the fact that many aspects of the cover-up were done poorly and sloppily.

I also agree that we do not know with certainty what Oswald did and did not say in his interrogations. The reported statement that he merely brought his lunch to work rings true to me, and I note that Marina thought that he had taken his lunch to work, although I would not bet a large sum of money on the matter. In my early, meager-income days in the Army, I would take my lunch to work in one of the brown grocery bags that grocery stores used to bag customer food. The bags were about 12 x 7 x 17. I would roll up the top of the bag and use the rolled part as a handle, because the bag was much larger than my lunch. 

[Tom Gram]

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are avoiding the main point and its implications.

If the original document had been destroyed, it would be much harder to prove that the document was altered, and you would argue that there was no evidence of a previous version of the document. 

Lone-gunman theorists frequently argue that such a massive cover-up could not succeed because someone would have talked and/or because incriminating evidence would be overlooked and would eventually surface. Yet, when people who had knowledge of the plot and/or the cover-up have talked, WC apologists have looked for every reason to disbelieve them; and when overlooked incriminating evidence surfaces or is uncovered, WC apologists argue that no plotters would have been dumb enough to leave such evidence behind, and they avoid dealing with the implications of the incriminating evidence. 

Yet, you folks never apply this same logic to alleged lone-gunman evidence. You ask us to believe that the same man who allegedly took the time to so carefully hide the alleged murder weapon supposedly left behind his three spent cartridges in plain view right next to the window. Indeed, in your scenario, this same man had pictures taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then gave the police the location where they would later allegedly find the pictures. One would logically think that any man who was going to try to shoot JFK the next day would have ensured that such incredibly damning photographs were destroyed the night before.

To top it all off, you ask us to believe that this same man, instead of buying a rifle and a pistol at a local gun store and leaving no paper trail, bought his weapons via mail order and thus created a paper trail that could enable authorities to trace both weapons back to him. He was even kind of enough to carry a fake ID card in the name that he allegedly used to buy the rifle and the pistol.  

Great examples of lone assassin theorists applying inconsistent standards to the evidence. 

To my understanding, the argument is basically that Oswald had a bad day so he decided to murder the President only a day or two in advance, and didn’t have a chance to or care about covering his tracks. He just wanted to make his mark on history, or something like that.

Oswald of course denied everything, but the popular argument there is that he was planning on revealing his master plan at trial. I don’t see the logic behind desperately trying to escape to the point of murdering a cop if your ultimate plan was to be taken into custody, but that’s how lone assassin theorists generally present Oswald’s motive. 

Another common argument is that the allegations of evidence tampering are too complicated, and that Occam’s razor suggests that any inconsistencies are just innocent mistakes, etc. In the case of the curtain rods, the simplest explanation by far for the altered evidence form is that there were two sets of rods, so this argument doesn’t work. Bugliosi got away with it because he didn’t have the original form - but now that we do, the only way to explain away all the alleged “mistakes” is with the type of convoluted mess outlined in my last comment in this thread.