Questions For Buell Wesley Frazier

[Rick Plant]

Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?

Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?

And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?

If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" the incriminating evidence which is designed to implicate the individual they want to frame?   

[David Von Pein]

If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" the incriminating evidence which is designed to implicate the individual they want to frame?

You think President Kennedy was killed with a pair of curtain rods, do you?

[Rick Plant]

You think President Kennedy was killed with a pair of curtain rods, do you?

I said if, not that they did.

I answered your hypothetical question but you didn't answer my question to you.

If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" incriminating evidence designed to implicate him? 

Have you ever seen a case where authorities "simply ditched" evidence when they wanted to implicate someone of a crime?   

[David Von Pein]

I think you're a bit lost, Rick.

The only thing I've been talking about in these last few posts are curtain rods, not a weapon of some kind.

So, how in any way could a pair of curtain rods be used to "implicate" Oswald in the President's murder?

[Alan Ford]

Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?

Agent Howlett may well have done just that, at least eventually.

But first, the problem posed by whoever had found the rods in the Depository (two curtain rods, marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) needed to be addressed. This person, if they kicked up a fuss and went public with their description of the two curtain rods they had found, could destroy trust in the official claim that Mr Oswald had not brought curtain rods to work.

And so a scheme to----------------
a) generate paperwork that would satisfy this witness that the curtain rods had been thoroughly examined and shown not to have been handled by Mr Oswald
b) generate insurance against any potential future public claims by the pesky Depository employee by placing into the official record two curtain rods, marked (as Ruth Paine Exhibits) with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6
---------------was hatched.

Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?

And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?

Your fantasy scenario concerning Ruth's curtain rods is utterly ridiculous....not to mention totally superfluous (even if people WERE trying to frame Oswald).

~Grin~

Says the man with the following hilariously kooky explanation of the crime lab document:

Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)

Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?

[Richard Smith]

Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?

Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?

And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?

Your fantasy scenario concerning Ruth's curtain rods is utterly ridiculous....not to mention totally superfluous (even if people WERE trying to frame Oswald).

Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting.  The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination.  And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods.  Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin.  Mission accomplished.  But wait.  Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!  And they do this to check for Oswald's prints!  And fill out a form to document this.  HA HA HA.  But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald.  So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage.  But they can't get the dates right to pull this off.  Makes a lot of sense - to Alan.  CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting.  The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination.  And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods.  Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin.  Mission accomplished.  But wait.  Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!  And they do this to check for Oswald's prints!  And fill out a form to document this.  HA HA HA.  But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald.  So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage.  But they can't get the dates right to pull this off.  Makes a lot of sense - to Alan.  CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.

If you begin with the dogmatic view (and it is dogmatic) that a conspiracy occurred and that Oswald was framed then you have to reverse engineer this evidence, these facts, these actions to fit into that conspiracy. So you have to have the CIA Sherlock Holmes joining up with the Dallas Police Department Keystone Cops. The conspirators are both brilliant and all powerful and resourceful and incompetent and illogical and neglectful. It has to be in order for your conspiracy to work, to make some sense.

You then have a type of conspiracy Rube Goldberg device or plan where a button is pushed and wheels turn and bells ring and balls roll down and fall and at the end of this long weird process JFK is dead and Oswald framed. But instead of bells and whistles and balls it's real human beings pulling this off. Now we know human beings don't operate like cogs or things; but the conspiracists think, indeed insist they do because this both all powerful and all incompetent "they" order them to do so. And these people, these cogs - unlike human beings in the real world - simply do what they are ordered to do. None objected to the plan, none refused to go along, none blew the whistle.

[Alan Ford]

Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting.  The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination.  And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods.  Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin.  Mission accomplished.  But wait.  Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!  And they do this to check for Oswald's prints!  And fill out a form to document this.  HA HA HA.  But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald.  So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage.  But they can't get the dates right to pull this off.  Makes a lot of sense - to Alan.  CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.

Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!

Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................