Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh boy.
You seem a bit hot under the collar there Martin.
I get the impression you don't like your own scenario questioned (whatever that is).
Like I say, I'm just playing with possibilities, trying to find the best fit.

"...while he was running the polygraph,
Frazier was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown
heavy paper gun case...Frazier said that it
was possible that this was the case, but he did not think
that it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper
that OSWALD had when he rode to work with him that
morning was about two feet long."

To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?

Doesn't the DPD document seem "suspicious" to you in any way?
You even said yourself:
"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."

"The bottom line is that you made an assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever..."

The assumption I'm making - that BWF downplayed the size of the bag Oswald brought to work with him that morning is based on the following evidence:

Oswald broke his usual routine, went to the Paine house the night before the assassination to collect curtain rods - Frazier's testimony
There were two curtain rods in the Paine garage - Ruth Paine's testimony
There was a rifle in a blanket in the garage - Marina's testimony
Oswald showed up at the Randle house with a long package - BWF and LMR testimony
Oswald reminded Frazier they were curtain rods - Frazier testimony
Oswald never mentioned needing curtain rods to Ruth Paine, Marina or Earlene Roberts.
The two curtain rods were still in the garage after the assassination - Ruth Paine testimony
The rifle was missing after the assassination - various police testimonies

The scenario I'm proposing covers all these bits of testimony.
Does yours?

"...which you now believe to be the absolute truth and nothing anybody can tell you will make you change your mind."

Propose a better scenario and change my mind.

PS: Even if it includes "Oswald's travel rods"

Propose a better scenario and change my mind.

It's pretty obvious there is no changing your mind. I know when I am wasting my time, so I'll pass.

[Bill Chapman]

The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning  - the length of the bag.
Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.
It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.
There only real concern would probably be whether Frazier was involved in some way.
He wasn't.
He really did believe there were curtain rods in the bag. That's the truth.
He really wasn't involved in any way. That's the truth.

And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".

If the authorities think he's mistaken over one detail that's not a crime.
If they think he's lying to them, that's a different ball game.
They obviously believe he is being truthful.

Because the authorities obviously believed he was being truthful.
And I imagine that belief didn't come easy.
I imagine Frazier was put through the wringer before they were satisfied.
History tells us they were satisfied and did believe he was being truthful.
I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not.
They believed he thought it was curtain rods in the bag.
They believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.

"I imagine if there was the slightest doubt the police would've been all over him because these are men whose specialist subject is whether they are being told the truth or not."
They kept asking him the same questions over and over which is the way to catch people in a lie. If you watch The First 48, the perps keep changing their answers partly because they forget what they said earlier.

You don't know about this?
By PAUL THOMPSON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:30 EDT, 20 November 2015 | UPDATED: 10:39 EDT, 20 November 2015

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html

[EXCERPT]

"Hours later at the hospital he was arrested by police after they were told he gave Oswald a lift to work. He was questioned for hours as detectives suspected he was involved in an assassination plot. At one point he was even asked to sign a confession admitting his part in the killing."

'I just told them what I knew, and told the truth,' said Buell. 'They kept on asking about Lee and the ride to work. I told them all I knew, but I could see they suspected I was involved.
'I couldn't believe I was being asked about the assassination of the President. I was just a simple country boy and it was just a nightmare.
'I kept on telling the police I did not know anything. They kept on asking me the same questions.
'I told them what I knew about Lee, but that wasn't very much. I gave him a lift to work but we did not socialize after work. I never saw him outside of work.
'It was the truth, but they did not believe me and were convinced I was involved.'
--Buell Frazier

[Alan Ford]

I'm basing that assumption on the following images of Oswald's room and the fact he never mentioned needing curtain rods to his housekeeper or Mrs Paine, from whom he is supposed to have just taken the rods

Like I say, you don't know that Mr Oswald had no need to bring curtain rods to work that day

Read my recent posts Alan.
I'm not claiming anything as a fact, unlike yourself.
Ruth Paine's testimony and the record of the "official" removal of the rods from the Paine garage completely undermine the dubious DPD document.

It's quite the other way around actually. That document makes a farce of Ms Paine's 3/23/64 testimony taking at Irving.

Pointing out the seemingly deliberate falsification of the document is a "gambit"? Listen to yourself.
"WC apologist"?? I can assure you I'm no WC apologist.
"disaster"?? Please elaborate on what you mean here.

It's "silly" to point out the clearly dubious nature of the DPD document? I don't think so Alan. I think it's a bit more than silly to take that document at face value, as you seem to do.

As the person who first pointed out the release dates anomaly between the original version and the version that went into the Warren volumes, I can assure you it's not silly to draw attention to it. But that's not your game, is it, Mr O'Meara? No, your game is to dub the document as 'dubious'/'not reliable' purely in order to neutralize the very real problem it poses to the official claim that no curtain rods were found in the Depository building. Straight out of the McAdams playbook

[Alan Ford]

I'm assuming there were only two curtain rods etc. based on various testimonies.

If there had been two curtain rods in the garage prior to the assassination, and these same two curtain rods were still there after the assassination, don't you find it just a little bit odd that not a single report (DPD, FBI, SS) makes mention of this fact prior to Ms Paine's March testimony? You seriously think no one thought to follow up this absolutely critical question?

In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?
I have to assume it's because Oswald told him about them.

Why on earth would Mr Oswald have told him about them?
 

Otherwise it's a wildly lucky guess.

Here's another wildly lucky guess: Mr Frazier's size estimate for the paper bag was within one half of an inch of the length of the curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage. You think Mr Oswald told him that as well?

[John Iacoletti]

Polygraph-testing remains controversial to this day: For example, an honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.

Buell barely had a pulse, FFS
Not one of the most excitable people in town.

And you know this how?  Chapman Fabrications anyone?

[John Iacoletti]

So, Oswald shows up with a long package.
Later that day the world hears that he's shot the President.
Ruth and Marina tell the police he left that morning to walk half a block to the Randle house with a long package.
One of the neighbours notices a man putting a long package into a car across the street.
But Frazier tells the police there was no long package.

What would the police think in this scenario?
Might they think BWF was lying?

They might if there was anybody who could corroborate that Buell ever saw a package.  But in this proposed scenario none of the people ever saw Buell seeing a package.  He was inside the house at the time.

By shortening the length of the bag BWF can be accused of being 'mistaken', that's not a crime.
But lying about there being no package? That is a crime.

Maybe under oath, but not under interrogation.  If they can't prove that he's lying about the length, they certainly can't prove he ever saw a package either.

[John Iacoletti]

The only thing Drain's report reveals is that it wasn't a real polygraph test.
Frazier isn't being asked specific questions that he answers 'yes' or 'no' to. He's having a conversation - "it's possible it was this, but it could have been that" type of thing.
A good reason to suppose that there will never be a record found of the polygraph test is because it wasn't real.
I don't know a lot about polygraphs but I'm assuming they don't work by having the person being tested just chat away.
The bottom line is, in the scenario I'm proposing Frazier changes one small detail at the beginning  - the length of the bag.

It boggles my mind that you think a police department that arrested a man for murder with zero probable cause would step back and say "oh, we can't accuse this man as being an accessory because he said he saw a different bag that was shorter".  Really?  Even so, they still tried to force him to sign a confession with no evidence.

Everything else he can be completely honest about because he is innocent. He's done nothing wrong.

He could be honest about that too because he's innocent.

It's not unimaginable to assume the authorities already think they know what was in the bag. They are 100% certain what was in the bag Oswald brought to work that day.

Lots of people are 100% certain about things that they have no evidence of.

And to get back to a point John made earlier.
Imagine Frazier hooked up to a polygraph that he thought was real and thinking he could get away with "There was no long package".

But he would think he could get away with "the bag was only 2 feet long"?

[John Iacoletti]

In Frazier's first statement he mentions that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.
How did Frazier know there were curtain rods available in the Paine household?

Hell, how would Oswald know there were extra curtain rods in the Paine household?