Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

They rigged it by naming the first Ruth Paine Exhibit 'Exhibit No. 270'!

Ruth Paine Exhibit 270: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 271: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 272: a sheet of wrapping paper
Ruth Paine Exhibit 273: a strip of sticking tape
Ruth Paine Exhibit 274: a piece of string
Ruth Paine Exhibit 275: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 276: a curtain rod
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277: bunch of letters from Ms Paine to Ms Oswald
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-A: $10 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Dec 1963)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 277-B: $5 check from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine (Jan 1964)
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278: Christmas card from Ms Oswald to Ms Paine
Ruth Paine Exhibit 278-A: Envelope in which Christmas card (Exhibit 278) was transmitted.

A complete farce. They were there in Irving for one reason and one reason only: to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276.

They needed to do this because two curtain rods marked 275 & 276 (= precise length markings stamped on the rods by the manufacturer) had been discovered in the Depository and, on 15 March, submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'

There is a massive flaw in your argument. How in the world could there have been two curtain rods at the TSBD that were already marked 275 and 276? Who marked them, when were they marked and why?

You're not suggesting that the numbers were already on the rods when Oswald brought them in, are you? And who was the Depository employee who found them?

It seems to me that you, with hindsight, are trying to concoct an explanation for the numbers being written on the DPD document.

[Martin Weidmann]

I suggest a new Thread for the Off-Topic section to be titled 'Weidmann vs Chapman: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, Mr Weidmann, you would realize how much you delight Mr Chapman every time you take his bait. Diverting serious discussions is the only reason he's here, and you fall for it, every time. It's pathetic.

Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell me what to do?

If you had any common decency you could have contacted me by PM instead of publicly trying to police the forum because of something you don't like. I am very much aware about what is going on with Chapman. Do you really believe for one second that low life Chapman will desist disrupting discussions on this forum? Of course not, he will just try to do it in another way.

[Bill Chapman]

Indeed. That's what happens when insecure little men with an inferiority complex are desperately trying to prove and justify themselves. Like a hush puppy barking to a bull dog....

Your obsession with me remains duly noted.

[Bill Chapman]

Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell me what to do?

If you had any common decency you could have contacted me by PM instead of publicly trying to police the forum because of something you don't like. I am very much aware about what is going on with Chapman. Do you really believe for one second that low life Chapman will desist disrupting discussions on this forum? Of course not, he will just try to do it in another way.

Stop whining.

[Bill Chapman]

it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

 I doubt that our little Chappie will understand your logic Martin.....  But you nailed him.

More a case of you two jokers inadvertently gobsmacking yourselves while trying to 'nail' me with what wind up as (verbal) boomerangs. Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, children.

[Alan Ford]

There is a massive flaw in your argument. How in the world could there have been two curtain rods at the TSBD that were already marked 275 and 276? Who marked them, when were they marked and why?

My proposed answer to these very questions is already stated quite explicitly in my previous post (Reply #461).

If you have a better explanation as to why the first Ruth Paine Exhibit was numbered 270, I'm all ears

[Bill Chapman]

But you are, right?   

If you say so.