Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Walt Cakebread]

Maybe it was the truth.  All we have to go on that Oswald ever even mentioned curtain rods is Frazier's say-so.

That's why Alan is pursuing his hypothesis.  If curtain rods were found in the Paine garage on March 23 and had never been moved, then what curtain rods were submitted into evidence on March 15, and where were they found?

I know it is.  Because they will glom on to any little speculation and conjecture and call it "evidence".  Curtain rods could very well be a "BS excuse", but it doesn't just follow that it is a BS excuse for fetching a rifle to kill the president.  And no, we don't actually know that he "had a rifle stowed in the Paine garage" on the 21st.  That's an assumption too.

That's your first mistake.  He's a propagandist.

Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me.  And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself.  This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.

That's your first mistake.  He's a propagandist.

That's correct....Do not fall into Von Pein's trap.....

[Richard Smith]

The form that has now been posted at least a thousand times references the same WC numbers given to the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.  There is no doubt they are one and the same.  There is no evidence whatsoever that any curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  None.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date.  Is the date wrong?  When was the date entered?  Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date?   That may all be fodder for nutty CTers but as a narrative for a conspiracy it makes no sense for the authorities to suppress curtain rods to frame Oswald and then bring them to light months later to check for Oswald's prints. And conveniently document this process on a form.  The very last thing they would have ever done.  And then somehow in this fantasy they somehow convince the person who discovered the curtain rods to remain silent while also convincing Truly to lie that no such curtain rods were ever found.  And on and on.  Same old nonsense.

[John Iacoletti]

The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date.  Is the date wrong?  When was the date entered?  Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date?

[Alan Ford]

Excellent.
So let's see if I can take it a step further.



On the 15th the rods are submitted.
Using a red pen Day fills in the details:

Date of submission etc.
The description of what has been submitted.
The "Examination Request" - "Check for prints"
His signature to confirm he received the specimen.
Howlett signs as the officer submitting the specimen.

Once he has completed his examination he writes the result at the bottom.
After this the two documents are separated and filled in differently.

Still on track?

 

(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)

[Alan Ford]

Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me.  And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself.  This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.

It has been suggested by (IIRC) Mr Anthony Marsh that Mr Oswald wanted heavier, darker curtains and realized such would need stronger rods

[Dan O'meara]

(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)

Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.

So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276

[Alan Ford]

Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.

So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276

No, the Warren Commission Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 had already been assigned elsewhere (during Mr Robert Oswald's WC testimony in February), and the assigning of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 was still eight days in the future.

The rods submitted to the lab 3/15/64 were marked (for whatever non-WC-related reason) with the numbers 275 and 276. This is what necessitated the later blatantly contrived creation of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276. The 'marking' of two curtain rods as such was the entire point of the testimony session in Irving 3/23/64