Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Dan O'meara]

Here's a clearer image of that doc

[Dan O'meara]

They're not trying to impress the employee but to show them documentary evidence that will satisfy them that the matter has been looked into and there's nothing to see here. This witness, if not satisfied, could go public and cause a MAJOR headache.

Each rod extends out.

The "Crime Scene Search Section" document is evidence. I can't think of any other location where the finding of two curtain rods would require testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

Panic at the highest levels over curtain rods at just the time two curtain rods are submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints!

So that the public version will have a release date post-3/25 (the date the Paine rods were tested)?

Lt. Day's print card for one of the rods

 

It's weird to see you making such sense. 

Still not 100% about the creation of the top copy for the employee, feel sure there's more to it but can't come up with anything better at the minute.
Just for something to say - why do you think it took so long for the rods to come to light?

[Alan Ford]

It's weird to see you making such sense. 

I have my moments, Mr O'Meara 

Still not 100% about the creation of the top copy for the employee, feel sure there's more to it but can't come up with anything better at the minute.
Just for something to say - why do you think it took so long for the rods to come to light?

Good question! Maybe they were found at the bottom of an elevator shaft, or between some boxes, or... Alternatively, maybe they were found and handed over not long after the assassination and the pesky employee turned up again in March asking pesky questions about them ('I never heard back from you guys about those curtain rods I found').

[Alan Ford]

Ah, Mr Galbraith, the very man! How do you-----------with your much-vaunted rational approach to the evidence------------account for the information and dates on this document?



Cordial request: please do NOT run away from this like you did before! 

Bumped for Mr Galbraith! 

[Alan Ford]

From Mr Pat Speer's superbly searching Chapter 16 on (amongst other things) the curtain rods (patspeer.com)------------

But then, on 8-31-64, Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin wrote a letter to FBI Director Hoover, asking him to have the FBI interview Roy Truly, Oswald's boss at the Texas School Book Depository, to see if anyone came across a package of curtain rods in the building.

Yes, strangely enough, months after the Warren Commission's staff had written a report claiming Oswald had lied when he told Buell Frazier the package he brought to work on 11-22-63 contained curtain rods, and months after the commissioners had signed off on this finding, it had finally occurred to someone that, hey, maybe, the package Oswald brought into the building DID contain curtain rods--and that, geez, before we conclude Oswald had lied about this, we should at least ask Roy Truly if he recalled anyone ever finding a package of curtain rods in the building.

Here's the interview report------------------



Looks like the specter of curtain rods found at the Depository had not been banished by September. My favorite line: "...it would be customary for any discovery of curtain rods to immediately be called to his attention." Yes, we have a longstanding tradition here at the Texas School Book Depository that any employee finding curtain rods on the premises should report the fact to the building manager. 

[Bill Chapman]

If that wasn't the reason for bringing it up, why bring it up at all?

I'm glad you agree. I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it. So, that's the "Oswald brought the MC rifle to the TSBD in a paper bag" theory out the window 

Btw I hope this is not too much word salad for you to handle.... What exactly is the cut off point where you start to struggle with the content? 10 words perhaps, or is it a few more? Just let me know, and I'll see if I can help.

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

[Richard Smith]

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

The bag was also found. It had Oswald's prints on it.  No one in over 50 years who worked at the TSBD ever explained or claimed ownership of the bag the authorities claimed Oswald used to carry his rifle.  It is found just next to the SN.  Oswald himself denied carrying curtain rods or any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  He said it was his lunch.  So these kooks are claiming that he lied against his own interest.  It is absurd Alice-in-Wonderland logic to claim there is any doubt about the bag.  And EVEN if they thought there was any doubt about whether Oswald used his bag to carry the rifle, his rifle is in the TSBD!  It got there somehow whether in Oswald's bag or via sugar plum fairies.  It belongs to him.  There is no other explanation for how Oswald's rifle ends up on the 6th floor.  No one else was seen carrying a rifle into the building.  And how could they gain access to Oswald's rifle?  It's laughable.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag

Who said you needed to prove that? What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.

And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.

Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?