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

[Tim Nickerson]

 

Nope! Mr Jenner chose-----------for no clear reason------------to begin with the number 270 when marking items taken on-the-record from the Paine home:



Funny how he just so happened to arrive at 275 by the time he reached the first curtain rod! And just look at those essential items he picked up before reaching the curtain rods. No fewer than 3 pieces of string! 

On your own scenario, Mr Nickerson, the choice of 270 as a starting point, as well as the number of items reached before 275 was reached, was part of an elaborate sham for the benefit of the American public:
---------------The rods were being 'found' by the very man who had submitted them for testing 8 days earlier
---------------The WC testimony taker contrived his arrival at 275 for the first curtain rod.

Welcome to the CT community, Mr Nickerson! 

Jenner began with #270 with the known numbers of the two curtain rods in mind. There's nothing funny or conspiratorial about it. You are attempting to inflate this into something it's not and you're looking like a complete fool in the process.

[Tim Nickerson]

You are accusing your beloved WC of falsifying the on-the-record receipt of evidence!

How so?

[Tim Nickerson]

That?s quite possibly the silliest speculation I?ve ever seen on any aspect of the case.

Oh really? Let's see you come up with something better then.

[Alan Ford]

Jenner began with #270 with the known numbers of the two curtain rods in mind. There's nothing funny or conspiratorial about it. You are attempting to inflate this into something it's not and you're looking like a complete fool in the process.

 

You are attempting to explain away this bizarre behavior on Howlett and Jenner's part and you're looking like a complete and utter fool in the process!

To summarise where you're at on this issue:
1. Agent Howlett took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage without her knowledge and submitted them for testing for Mr Oswald's prints (reason for doing this: you haven't a notion!)
2. Agent Howlett got back the curtain rods and----again without Ms Paine's knowing it----put them back in her garage
3. Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner then conspired to stage the entire on-the-record 'discovery' of the rods in the garage, even going so far as to contrive a way of coming to the number 275 for the first curtain rod
4. The reason for this elaborate sham? "[T]o dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located" (i.e. you haven't a notion!). 

You make these wild and rather desperate speculations not because they make a lick of sense but because the Crime Scene Search Form contains dates inconvenient to the theory put forward by your 'dramatically confirming' WC. And your wild and rather desperate speculations are underpinned by---------my favorite part--------'documentation' that is 'obviously' 'missing'.

Thanks for playing, Mr Nickerson, it's been a hoot watching you wriggle on a hook of your own making!

 

[Alan Ford]

How so?

By putting together an elaborately sham on-the-record receipt of evidence by the WC.

This is your own explanation, Mr Nickerson! 

[Tim Nickerson]

You are attempting to explain away this bizarre behavior on Howlett and Jenner's part and you're looking like a complete and utter fool in the process!

To summarise where you're at on this issue:
1. Agent Howlett took 2 curtain rods from Ms Paine's garage without her knowledge and submitted them for testing for Mr Oswald's prints (reason for doing this: you haven't a notion!)
2. Agent Howlett got back the curtain rods and----again without Ms Paine's knowing it----put them back in her garage
3. Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner then conspired to stage the entire on-the-record 'discovery' of the rods in the garage, even going so far as to contrive a way of coming to the number 275 for the first curtain rod
4. The reason for this elaborate sham? "[T]o dramatically confirm that not only was Ruth Paine aware of them but that she knew exactly where they were located" (i.e. you haven't a notion!). 

You make these wild and rather desperate speculations not because they make a lick of sense but because the Crime Scene Search Form contains dates inconvenient to the theory put forward by your 'dramatically confirming' WC. And your wild and rather desperate speculations are underpinned by---------my favorite part--------'documentation' that is 'obviously' 'missing'.

Every one of those points is reasonable, with your snide remarks removed of course.
I have done something that you have not. I've addressed the questions that you've directed at me. You've avoided those directed at you. You haven't explained yourself to me yet. That is, you have avoided explaining your two different pairs of curtain rods that ended up with the same numbers attached to them. Why is that? What do you have? Where did the two curtain rods submitted on March 15 come from? How is it that they had the same numbers attached to them as the two curtain rods that were removed from a shelf in the Paine garage on March 23?

Come on Alan, put up or shut up.

[Alan Ford]

Every one of those points is reasonable, with your snide remarks removed of course.
I have done something that you have not. I've addressed the questions that you've directed at me. You've avoided those directed at you. You haven't explained yourself to me yet. That is, you have avoided explaining your two different pairs of curtain rods that ended up with the same numbers attached to them. Why is that? What do you have? Where did the two curtain rods submitted on March 15 come from? How is it that they had the same numbers attached to them as the two curtain rods that were removed from a shelf in the Paine garage on March 23?

Come on Alan, put up or shut up.

 

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world! 

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.