A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[David Von Pein]

Alan thinks that the word "marked" equals "measured".

We can only sit back and marvel at the way in which the mind of the conspiracy theorist (i.e., fantasist) works. It's a truly extraordinary thing to behold.

 

[Alan Ford]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Alan thinks that the word "marked" equals "measured".

We can only sit back and marvel at the way in which the mind of the conspiracy theorist (i.e., fantasist) works. It's a truly extraordinary thing to behold.

 

Give us alternative date------any one that you think would work-------for the submission of the two curtain rods to the Crime Lab.

You still can't, can you?

Must really eat you up! 🤣

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, in looking at Alan's postings, I really hope he starts a thread about the alleged spotting

of Oswald in the theater by Brewer.

He did some nice work on that one.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, in looking at Alan's postings, I really hope he starts a thread about the alleged spotting

of Oswald in the theater by Brewer.

He did some nice work on that one.

Get behind me, tempter!

[Marcus Fuller]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I did explain it. The March 15 date is simply an error. It HAS to be.

 

It only 'has to be' if it's inconvenient to think otherwise. Two police officers fill out/sign a form and likely see it on several occasions and neither notice an error in the first section? Writing 24th when it's the 25th is an easy mistake to make, but not a week difference!

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The "L.C. Graves Exhibits" begin with number 5003-A.

And then there's the "Hardin" exhibits, which begin with No. 5125.

And the "Harrison" exhibits start with #5027.

Plus a bunch of other oddball starting numbers for other witnesses too. (See link below.)

And what do all these numbers have in common, Mr. Von Pein?

5003

5125

5027

[Jean Ceulemans]

 

* IMAGES deleted to save space*

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Jean.

I wonder if this should have been in Max's film.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Thank you, Mr. Ceulemans.

I believe this official marking of 275 was expressly designed to supplant the disastrously documented fact of a previous 2-7-5 marking: a marking (perhaps made in pencil by Mrs. Paine?) of 27.5 (inches) on a curtain rod found in the Depository after the assassination.

The other rod found in the Depository had also been marked 27.5: the two rods were equal in length.

So one rod marked 27.5 (length marking) became Ruth Paine Exhibit 275; the other Ruth Paine Exhibit 276. And "276" was added to the original Crime Lab submission/release form.

The on-the-record official marking of a curtain rod in the Paine garage with the exact same digits as its actual length (as measured on the spot in the Paine garage) was no innocent act!

It was arrived at quite calculatedly by starting the numbering of Ruth Paine Exhibits at the random number 270.

IMO the above scenario is the only logical way of making sense of what's on that bombshell form, which has so magnificently defeated the brains of Mr. Von Pein and his Warren Gullible pals!

Edited November 5, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Greg Doudna]

The WC naming CE 275 as the exhibit number for a curtain rod measured at exactly 27-1/2 inches and listed on a form dated a week before the WC found it as bearing a mark on it (the curtain rod) “275”, is a hell of a coincidence. Combined with the written March 15 date before the curtain rods were (re)found in the garage, plus Ruth’s possible avoidance of answering the question of prior FBI discussion about the curtain rods in her garage, suggests there may be something amiss or “there”, but exactly what would be the question. 

I am wondering if possibly Oswald did carry two of what may have been Ruth’s original four curtain rods lifted from her garage the morning of Nov 22 after all, in the 38” paper bag, bag top folded over down to the 27.5 inches of the curtain rods; Frazier was accurate both on what Oswald told him and the 27.5” size of what Oswald was carrying; Lee lied to Fritz in denying the curtain rods; the curtain rods were theatre (so to speak), not for Oswalds rooming house; and Oswald tossed the curtain rods in a dumpster at the rear loading dock at the TSBD out of Frazier’s sight before going in the second rear door with only the 38” paper bag? In this scenario the 2 curtain rods found by the WC in the garage would be the remaining 2 which did not leave the garage on Nov 22.

As for why Oswald would not incriminate himself by claiming to Fritz he strangely brought 2 of Ruth Paine’s curtain rods in a bag associated with the rifle when he had no practical actual use for curtain rods, and did so behind Ruth’s back without asking her permission, would still remain a puzzle. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As for why Oswald would not incriminate himself by claiming to Fritz he strangely brought 2 of Ruth Paine’s curtain rods in a bag associated with the rifle when he had no practical actual use for curtain rods, and did so behind Ruth’s back without asking her permission, would still remain a puzzle. 

A couple of possibilities, Mr. Doudna, each of which arises from my firm belief that Mr. Oswald had signed up for involvement in a missed-shots false-flag stunt.......................

1. He went to Irving Thursday p.m. to see his wife and kids for what he knew could be the last time. He used the curtain rods as a pretext (for Mr. Frazier's benefit) for this visit.

2. The curtain rods were needed in some way for the political stunt (which would explain why Mr. Oswald would not want to admit to them to Capt. Fritz).

Whatever the case, he did bring curtain rods to work the morning of the assassination, and they were found afterwards in the building.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

15 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Give us alternative date------any one that you think would work-------for the submission of the two curtain rods to the Crime Lab.

Bumped for Mr. Von Pein! 👍

[Jean Ceulemans]

On the 3/15/1964 date.

Is it a coincidence the WC asks Hoover on 3/16/1964 about the Beckley room ?

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Making an abstract on the rods themselves.  In the beginning it was about those rods being wrapped in paper or not.   Mrs. Paine wasn't sure wether she had or had not wrapped them.  

We do have Michael taking a look (some time after 11/22) to see if anything was missing, especially packed curtain rods, but I find nothing about him informing an agency on that, because

1) if they were wrapped, that wrapping sure was gone by the time the WC came over for tea and biscuits !

2) if they were not wrapped Mrs. Paine would have remembered that when asked in her WC hearing (she did mention Michael checking it out, so...)

So, one way or another, there is something going on there IMO ??

Was the wrapping bag gone with the wind ??

Pat Speer has more on this near the end of this page of his very interesting website

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story 

Somehow it feels like the FBI was one step ahead of the WC.  Like they already were at the Paine's in relation to that paper rod bag, Mrs. Paine probably (?) knew about the troubled relation between the WC and the FBI, and was evasive when asked.  

And where was Dallas FBI Agent Bardwell Odum in all of this ? 

Wasn't he the guy that was in often contact with the Paine's when there were questions to be answered.   

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[David Von Pein]

22 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And what do all these numbers have in common, Mr. Von Pein?

5003

5125

5027

Here are many more witness exhibits which appear to be just randomly numbered with very high numbers -- including the B.G. Patterson exhibits, which begin with #5311. And the Riggs exhibits, which begin with 5128. And then there's the Talbert exhibit series, which begins with numbers 1 and 2, but then jumps to number 5065 for some reason.

And, btw, the Ruth Paine exhibit numbers jump around too, going from #278-A to #461 and finally to #469 for the last one in the Ruth Paine series.

So there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for the strange numbering system utilized by the Warren Commission for the numbers assigned to the exhibits that have the witness' name attached to them---which is something else I've also never understood. Why didn't the Commission just simply label every exhibit the same way (e.g., CE1, CE2, etc.)? Why did some witnesses warrant having their own names being attached to their exhibits? I've always wondered why that was done. ~shrug~

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by David Von Pein