Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Dan O'meara]

This doesn't make any sense. The DPD document is part of the official record. There is no logical or plausible purpose for this document to exist, except of course for a fingerprint examination of curtain rods that were provided to the DPD identification bureau on 3/15/64.

The original doesn't have to be doctored, simply because Lt Day wrote a different release date on the copy that found it's way into the WC evidence. To question the entire document as unreliable seems to be a selfserving exercise.

There is no reason to take the submittion date with a pinch of salt. The submittion date is the same on the original and the copy, the document is part of the official evidence, and even you can't think of a good reason for such a document to be forged.

To me, your "logic" seems to be designed to simply dismiss an inconvenient document.

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

[Dan O'meara]

That makes even less sense. Even the bag found at the TSBD wouldn't be big enough to contain a fully assembled rifle. What is your evidence for this claim?

Martin, I'm proposing a scenario to account for various aspects of the curtain rod story.
I'm speculating. Just trying to come up with a scenario that accounts for the things we do know about this aspect of the case.
I'm pretty sure I've made that clear.
Your use of the word "selfserving" seems really defensive.
I'm just playing with possibilities.

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.

How in the world do you know what Oswald needed or not?

Again, really defensive.
Why do you have to turn it into me trying to read Oswald's mind?
Oswald didn't need curtain rods because he had a perfectly fine set of curtain rods already in his room.
He didn't ever mention to his Earlene Roberts he ever had a problem with them or wanted to change them.
He didn't mention to Ruth Paine he wanted to use the ones in the garage.
I doubt he'd just walk off with property that wasn't his.
It's not a mystery and doesn't require mind-reading or anything like that.

And what makes you believe that the two sets of curtain rods were the only ones? What if there was a third set in Oswald's belongings? There has to be an explanation for the set of curtain rods that were given to the DPD to check for fingerprints on 03/15/64.

Oswald was carrying round curtain rods with him? Unbeknownst to Marina?
I get the impression Oswald was a "stripped down" kind of guy who travelled light. I find it unlikely he is carting round his own, personal curtain rods with him. It seems like a "luxury" possession.
I don't think I'll be taking that suggestion too seriously.
But you're right - there does have to be an explanation for the DPD document.

One week after returning from New Orleans, which was late September, Marina pulled back part of the blanket and saw what she believed to be a wooden stock of a rifle. Now even if that was true, and it was a rifle, how do you know it was the MC rifle and how do you know it was not removed earlier and thus still there on 11/21/63? The answer is easy; You don't.

If Marina saw a rifle in the specially prepared blanket and it was missing at the time of the assassination I'm going to play the odds.
I'm not saying for a fact that's what happened.
I'm speculating about a scenario that explains things like Marina's statement about a rifle being in the blanket, tied together to make a covering that would nicely contain a rifle which was the missing on the day of the assassination.
Your proposal of multiple rifles doesn't wash. Like your suggestion of Oswald's "travel rods".
I'm trying to simplify things.

You are making a lot of factual statements which in reality are only mere selfserving speculation.

What factual statements am I making?
As I've said numerous times - I'm proposing a scenario. That's all. It's nothing personal. Nothing "self-serving".

[Martin Weidmann]

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".
If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.
In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?
What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".

Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.

If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.

The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.

There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.

Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.

In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?

It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.

What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.

[Dan O'meara]

If you don't find this document suspicious then we have a different way of measuring such things, a different "logic".

Calling an official document suspicious, merely because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so.

I totally agree. Just because somebody doesn't understand something, that doesn't make that thing suspicious.
But that's not what's going on.
I understand that the part of the document that is in the official record has been radically, and deliberately altered.
That's what makes it suspicious.
That's not very difficult to understand. Is it?

If you've got a "logical" explanation for this document I'd like to hear it because I don't have a clue what's going on with it.

The logical explanation is that Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted a set of curtain rods to the DPD identification bureau on 03/15/64 to check if it had Oswald's prints on it. And according to the original copy, he collected those rods again on 03/24/64.

There mere fact that two sets of curtain rods were collected from Ruth Paine's garage, during her testimony, on 03/23/64, justifies the conclusion that Howlett's curtain rods must have been a third set.

Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain.

"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."

That's the important part. That's what casts a shadow over the whole document. Your "logic" has to include this fact.
Your confidence in this document is misplaced (IMO)

In what way do you imagine this document is "inconvenient"?

It's inconvenient for you as it does not match with your claim that there were only two sets of curtain rods, which were still in Ruth Paine's garage.

It's not my claim though. Is it.
Ruth Paine, the woman who wrapped the curtain rods and put them on the shelf states there were only two.
You ignore this piece of key evidence. I do not.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this testimony casts even more doubt over the dubious DPD document.

What does your "logic" tell you about why Oswald would help himself to some curtain rods that day?

I have no idea nor do I like to speculate.

"..nor do I like to speculate."

"Oswald's travel rods" don't come under the banner 'speculation'?
Really?
We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree over a few things.
There is no reason I can see for Oswald to take curtain rods with him that day. I can't make any kind of reasonable case to support the assumption he takes them.
He doesn't need them.
He never mentions them to Roberts.
He never mentions them to Paine.
But he does to Frazier.

[John Iacoletti]

Because Oswald was carrying a package.
Frazier would have to assume other people might have seen him carrying the package (Ruth Paine, Marina, neighbours etc.)
How would it look if Frazier denied seeing a package at all that others had seen Oswald carrying to his car?

All he would have to say is that he never saw any package.  How would they prove differently?  The Paine house wasn't close enough to the Randle house for Ruth or Marina to have seen him go to Frazier's car anyway (unless they followed him).  It makes no sense in a CYA scenario to admit seeing any package. 

[John Iacoletti]

What did he have to worry about?  LOL. Let's see. Frazier drove the person suspected of assassinating the President who he knew was carrying a long, narrow bag that could have contained the murder weapon.   Old Ned Spangler just held Booth's horse for a couple of minutes and nearly was hung for it.  Should Spangler have worried?  I think Oswald did carry a long bag and that he did tell Frazier it contained curtain rods.  But if the curtain rod story was fabricated by Frazier, the purpose would be to show that he had asked Oswald about the contents of the bag and the explanation that he was given (i.e. that it contained curtain rods) seemed plausible to him.  That gives Frazier cover to not be suspicious.  He becomes just a good ole boy in Gomer Pyle bliss.  How was he to know?  If, however, he didn't have any explanation about Oswald carrying such a strange bag that morning, it might beg the question as to whether he should have been more aware of what was happening.

Last time I checked, "not being aware of what was happening" is not a crime.

[John Iacoletti]

And how do you explain that Frazier passed a polygraph test on Friday evening?

Because he told the truth. Because he did nothing wrong.

How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?

[Jerry Freeman]

How does deliberately undersizing the bag that he saw, inventing a story about how the package was carried. and falsely calling the paper flimsier than the paper in CE 142 (in your proposed scenario) constitute telling the truth?

That one threw me too