Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later,

Nope!

 

[Martin Weidmann]

Already answered above:

No------------they were disappeared after Agent Howlett received them back off Lt Day 3/24. From this point forward, there were only two curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' of relevance to the case. That was the point of the whole exercise: a switcheroo.

So, you haven't seen and can not show the curtain rods with the markings from the manufacturer that were allegedly found at the TSBD by somebody you can not name. You have no evidence that the curtain rods Howlett gave the DPD on March 15th were actually found at the TSBD and you can't even show that the manufacturer did in fact mark the curtain rods they produced?

So, basically, all of this is nothing more than speculation on your part, right?

[Bill Chapman]

Unreal.  So the authorities suppressed Oswald's curtain rod story to begin with, brought them to light on their own motion months later, only to suppress them once again.  I can only marvel at the logical inconsistencies of this bizarre narrative.

on their own motion
>>> Of their own volition

You're welcome, "Richard" Richard.

[Alan Ford]

So, you haven't seen and can not show the curtain rods with the markings from the manufacturer that were allegedly found at the TSBD by somebody you can not name. You have no evidence that the curtain rods Howlett gave the DPD on March 15th were actually found at the TSBD and you can't even show that the manufacturer did in fact mark the curtain rods they produced?

Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'

So, basically, all of this is nothing more than speculation on your part, right?

Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270..........  Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

[Martin Weidmann]

Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'

Very weak.

Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270..........  Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?

No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald). There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?

I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage. Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods. However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods. Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The fact is that what you have here is a puzzle which clearly has pieces missing. Speculating about what those pieces are isn't going to help you solve the puzzle.

[Alan Ford]

Very weak.

That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted! 

It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted! 

No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald).

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods.

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

[Martin Weidmann]

So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted! 

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted! 

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

If you want to call that "logical inference", then you must also agree with the LNs who claim that it is a "logical inference" that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning.

For neither, there is a shred of evidence and for both a "what else could have been" argument can be made. You can not call the one "logical inference" and the other speculation. So, what is it? Are the LNs right when they claim Oswald concealed a broken down MC rifle in his paper bag or not?

Btw I agree with you that something very strange is going on here, but if your ultimate goal is to claim that curtain rods were actually found at the TSBD - nearly four months after the murder - you are very far away from proving it.