BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Alan Ford]

Alan what is your interpretation of the (4 pcs) annotation? I can only assume it means 4 pieces. One rod was white and one cream. Does it mean that each rod could be separated into 2 pieces each?

Exactly, Mr Crow-----------2 rods composed of 2 pieces each! 

(Note: Lieutenant Day's note says nothing about a 'cream' rod and a 'white' rod: only 'white enamel' for both.)

[Alan Ford]

Friends, those still wishing to press the case that Mr Oswald brought a rifle rather than curtain rods into the Depository on the morning of the assassination now have three dates they must explain away:

Date One! The March 15 submission date on both versions of the form. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?
Date Two! The March 24 released date on the original, co-signed version. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?
Date Three! The March 26 released date on the non-co-signed version. Is this date what Ms Davison would call 'an obvious error'?

 

Further! These data-denying Oswald-At-Any-Cost zealots must explain in a credible way the very existence of two different versions of the official form:



How can an item of evidence be submitted for testing just once yet released from the lab twice? 



The Lone Nutters can throw anything and everything they want at this, but none of it will stick.

The official historical record destroys their case because it proves:

a) There were 4 curtain rods in play as of the evening of 23 March 1964
-----------2 in Mrs Paine's garage
-----------2 in the Crime Scene Search Section

b) A bogus second version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was passed off as the genuine article.

'O but this time, Lord, you gave me a mountain/ A mountain that I may never climb...' 

[Richard Smith]

It has been staring us in the face, friends 

A SOLUTION!

1. There were 4 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage originally. (Cf. Mr Paine's testimony!)
2. Mr Oswald helped himself to 2 on 11/22.
3. The Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators knew perfectly well upon their first inspection of the garage that 2 rods were missing, but played it down.
4. Later, the 2 missing curtain rods turned up--------in the Depository.
5. These were submitted for fingerprinting on the morning of March 15, and not released until the morning of March 24.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 remaining rods were removed from Mrs Paine's garage on the evening of March 23.
7. A second, false version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was created for the record, the release date amended to March 26 to 'give time' to Lieutenant Day to fingerprint 'them'.
8. But Day screwed up---he didn't think to change the March 15 date at the top.

==========> The 2 rods removed by Agent Howlett from the Paine garage on 23 March were never fingerprinted (a pointless exercise, in any case!)
==========> The 2 rods found in the Depository were never seen again after Agent Howlett received them back from Lieutenant Day (which he did first thing---7:50 a.m.!---the morning after his on-the-record removal of the other 2 rods from the garage)
==========> By contriving to name the 2 rods removed from Mrs Paine's garage 'Exhibits 275 & 276', the WC created the impression that these were the same rods as those 'marked 275 & 276' in the DPD records.

 

Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game. 

[Alan Ford]

Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game.

 

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?

[Richard Smith]

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

[Walt Cakebread]

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?

This is a valid question....   I've asked myself that same question.    And the answer is; Perhaps it's a case of someone being out of the loop ( Someone didn't get the memo)

The person who found the curtain rods ( hidden under the loading dock?) at the TSBD was unaware that they didn't want to verify that the convicted and executed, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald, had in fact carried curtain rods and not a carcano in a paper sack that morning.   He who found the curtain rods needed to be duped into believing that the curtain rods that he had discovered had no connection with Lee Oswald or the murder of JFK.   

P.S.   Howlett was a leading member of the cover up team in Dallas......

[Alan Ford]

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

 

Mr Smith, you're like a worm wriggling on a hook and squealing 'What?! Ludicrous to think someone could have put a hook here!! This is NOT happening!!!'

I'm afraid it is happening, and your efforts to divert from the hard evidence are fooling nobody. You simply cannot explain what that hard evidence tells us:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Not a theory, not a speculation, not a claim: a documented fact.

2 + 2 = 4, Mr Smith, however you spin it! 

Now! Can anyone else from the Nutter stable do better than Mr Smith?