Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Bill Chapman]

Do you think Tony Fratini will thank you for sharing his private information on a public forum?

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?
 

[Martin Weidmann]

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?
 

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

Bla bla bla... Tony apparently told you in a private message. If he wanted to have it all over the forum, he would have posted it himself.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?

Nice pivot...as to the latter part; If true - which it isn't - wouldn't you also need to be here 24/7 to notice? Ever thought about that before you made that pathetic comment, genius?

[Alan Ford]

I would be very surprised indeed if the DPD felt it had to justify itself to some member of the public. I would imagine anyone finding the rods would be taken in and grilled about every single detail of the discovery. The DPD didn't need to make a fake copy to impress someone off the street.

Well, we're not talking about some member of the public/someone off the street but a Depository employee. Tricky business.
 

I totally agree that the testimony regarding the taking of the rods from the Paine house has an air of pantomime about it. Really over the top. And the thing that makes the least sense would be for the DPD to take the rods on the 23rd then pretend they had been found elsewhere over a week earlier.

Agreed on all counts!

But a lot of things don't make sense:
Why the change of sign-out date?

My working hypothesis is that there were two sets of curtain rods, one set found in the Depository, the other taken from the Paine garage. The latter set were tested on 11/25-----------



The original document (with release date 3/24) was not made public (and only came to light in the 1990s!)

If the rods were discovered elsewhere why go to the trouble of putting them back in the Paine house then do the "pantomime of discovery"?

Again, they weren't put back for Ms Paine's in situ deposition (the release date of 3/24 is too late for that). The rods found at the Depository (which were marked with the digits 275 & 276) were 'disappeared' into the rods taken from the Paine garage (which--------in a blatant contrivance--------were 'marked' as Exhibits 275 & 276). Those numbers are a real giveaway.

If they were first discovered in the Paine house, why pretend they were discovered earlier?

Again, I believe we are dealing two different sets of rods.

[Alan Ford]

What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date.

I thought that too until Mr Colin Crow offered a smart explanation: the placement of the carbon paper underneath the original was not perfect

[Bill Chapman]

Who says I was quoting him verbatim?
The quotation marks around the sentence says you tried to make it look like you were indeed quoting him verbatim.

Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
That's not the argument. What you need to justify is in the way you phrased it.

Your quote: 'Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President"'

[Bill Chapman]

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

Bla bla bla... Tony apparently told you in a private message. If he wanted to have it all over the forum, he would have posted it himself.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?

Nice pivot...as to the latter part; If true - which it isn't - wouldn't you also need to be here 24/7 to notice? Ever thought about that before you made that pathetic comment, genius?

 

My quote: "As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems"

You missed the it seems professor.
Sigh, guess I'll have to school you again: It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

[Dan O'meara]

Well, we're not talking about some member of the public/someone off the street but a Depository employee. Tricky business.

An employee of the TSBD is just a member of the public but even if they're not, the DPD don't have to fake a document to impress an employee of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense. However...

My working hypothesis is that there were two sets of curtain rods, one set found in the Depository, the other taken from the Paine garage. The latter set were tested on 11/25-----------



The original document (with release date 3/24) was not made public (and only came to light in the 1990s!)

IMO this was to merge the rods found at the Depository (which were marked with the digits 275 & 276) with the rods taken from the Paine garage (which--------in a blatant contrivance--------were 'marked' as Exhibits 275 & 276). Those numbers are a real giveaway.

Again, I believe we are dealing two different sets of rods.

...this does make sense, to a large extent, but there's still a lot of uncertainty:

Why do two curtain rods come in four pieces?
Is there any other evidence that the rods were found in the TSBD other than Fraziers' mystery caller?
How is Rankin's letter to Hoover tied into this?
Why the change of release date by Day?

At the very least you've demonstrated corruption in the processing of evidence but it would be satisfying to have an interpretation of the various documents that didn't leave so many tricky questions.

PS: What is the latest doc you posted?