Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Because all Mr Smith can come up with is the rather desperate theory that BOTH dates on the original form are a 'mistake'!

Maybe his next suggestion will be that the signed names are a 'mistake' too? This is how LNers tune out counter-fairytale data.

Has the NY Times responded to your "evidence" of a conspiracy to the kill President Kennedy?  No doubt a front page story.  Let us know how that goes.

[Alan Ford]

Has the NY Times responded to your "evidence" of a conspiracy to the kill President Kennedy?  No doubt a front page story.  Let us know how that goes.

"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)

I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused! 

[Walt Cakebread]

Here is my suspicion: Oswald took the entire bag (with Tag label containing Mrs Paines address ) containing rods and some blinds from Mrs Paines garage.

 Entering the door of the roofed enclosed dock bldg about 20 seconds ahead of BW Frazier, Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

Oswald of course forgot about his bag of rods and blinds in his anxious departure from TSBD at the post assassination time.

The Bag was discovered by some TSBD employee weeks or month later, , and if there  was an address of  Paine residence on it, The bag may have been submitted as “lost item” at 1st until  someone higher up in the CYA DPD immediately understood the significance of this bag and took charge of the item to “return it” to the owner.

I can’t remember if Mrs Paine was on vacation   but if so, that would be probably when the bag would likely have been returned without her knowledge.

In effect, someone dedicated to the WC narrative of Oswald bag containing MC  rifle, decided it was imperative  to get this bag of rods and blinds back into the Paines garage ASAP and pray that Mrs Paine was unaware the bag had ever been removed

Then they would CYA again  with a fake”inspection” of Mrs Paines garage on the date she returns from vacation, in order to create false “proof” that no bag,rods or other items were missing from Mrs Paines garage, this securing the WC paper bag made with TSBD paper by Oswald to carry his rifle into TSBD on Nov 22/63

Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

WHY?? Would Lee Oswald want to hide a paper bag ??    If anybody had asked him what he had in the bag, he could simply have told them that it contained some curtain rods just as Frazier claimed Lee had told him. 

The idea that Lee hid a paper bag rebuts Fraziers tale that Lee had told him that the FLIMSEY light weight paper bag held curtain rods.     If Lee had successfully duped Buell Frazier and Frazier had simply accepted that explanation, then Lee would likely have used the same explanation if anybody had been inquisitive enough to ask him what he had in the sack.   ( And it;s highly unlikely that anybody would have been so inquisitive and rude as to ask the  unfriendly fellow employee " whatcha got in the bag? "   

[Walt Cakebread]

"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)

I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused! 

Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. 

Yes, You're right....And THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THEY WERE FORCED TO STEAL THE ELECTION.

If Trump had remained in office with the reins of power in his hands ....Biden was headed for the big house, and not the White house.    Just as LBJ was a cornered rat and need to get the reins out of the hands of JFK,  Biden was a cornered rat.

Now that he's at the Helm, he can control  the investigation into Hunter's activities.....   

[Alan Ford]

From WC testimony of Ms Ruth Paine, taken at her Irving residence 3/23-------------

Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."
(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)

Question! Why did they choose the number 270 to begin marking this series of exhibits?

Answer! This entire needless testimony session at the Paine home was centered around ONE objective: to have in the official record two curtain rods marked 275 & 276. Because the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing eight days previously were marked with (on one) the digits 2-7-5 and (on the other) 2-7-6.

Now! I believe the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing by Agent Howlett (eight days before Ms Paine handed two curtain rods over to Agent Howlett in her garage) were indeed marked 275 & 276, just as noted on the form. However, these were not Exhibit numbers but precise manufacturer markings as to length: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

From Ms Paine's testimony session at Irving:

Agent HOWLETT - The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT - It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.

2 feet 3 1/2 inches = 27.5 inches. Ain't that a coincidence!

[Alan Ford]

Now! I believe the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing by Agent Howlett (eight days before Ms Paine handed two curtain over to Agent Howlett in her garage) were indeed marked 275 & 276, just as noted on the form. However, these were not Exhibit numbers but precise manufacturer markings as to length: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches.

From Ms Paine's testimony session at Irving:

Agent HOWLETT - The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT - It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.

2 feet 3 1/2 inches = 27.5 inches. Ain't that a coincidence!

And! What did Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle estimate as the length of the bag Mr Oswald brought with him to work that morning?

27 inches.

They were very, very close! 

[Walt Cakebread]

And! What did Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle estimate as the length of the bag Mr Oswald brought with him to work that morning?

27 inches.

They were very, very close! 

So you believe that Lee Was in fact transporting curtain rods in that paper bag?    If he was ....WHY would he deny that ??

[Alan Ford]

So you believe that Lee Was in fact transporting curtain rods in that paper bag?

Of course he was

If he was ....WHY would he deny that ??

We don't know for sure that he did-----------as we have seen elsewhere, Mr Oswald's words were twisted outrageously in the interrogation reports.

However, IF he did deny it, there's a simple explanation: he knows he stands accused of supplying the rifle, he knows he's been set up, and he understandably does not wish to admit to having brought ANY large package to work that morning.

He may even have checked shortly after the assassination for his curtain rods (in one of the first floor storage rooms perhaps?) and found them gone. At which point he will have put 2 and 2 together. In which case.... now, in interrogation, there is no point in confirming what Mr Frazier is saying about the curtain rods: they are not where he left them, so confirming them only makes him look worse.