Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Mark A. Oblazney]

You CTers would piss yourselves if the curtain rod thing hadn't been investigated. And what things haven't been investigated? Oh, yeah: CTer pet theories. So call a press conference, already.

Hey, here's a new thee-o-ree !!! Suppose...... Oz brought the curtain rods in with the disassembled Manlikker', put the rods up in the 6th-floor window to conceal his 'practice shots', then took them down minutes before he killed our president (whom he did indeed kill).  Did 6th-floor museum ever see if there were thingys to attach said curtain rods above the infamous window?  You know, those things you screw in to hold up the rods?  Were they there?  Are they there still?  Inquiring minds wish to know, uh.......  waiting for your prompt response, Mssr. Ford.  Moreover, would he remove said curtain rods to some other place like he did with the rifle?  This is exciting !!!!!

[Martin Weidmann]

Hey, here's a new thee-o-ree !!! Suppose...... Oz brought the curtain rods in with the disassembled Manlikker', put the rods up in the 6th-floor window to conceal his 'practice shots', then took them down minutes before he killed our president (which he did).  Did 6th-floor museum ever see if there were thingys to attach said curtain rods above the infamous window?  You know, those things you screw in to hold up the rods?  Were they there?  Are they there still?  Inquiring minds wish to know, uh.......  waiting for your prompt response, Mssr. Ford.  Moreover, would he remove said curtain rods to some other place like he did with the rifle?

If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than acting like an obstinate and dismissive wanna be clown, would you be able to provide us with an explanation, Mr. Oblazney?

[Mark A. Oblazney]

If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

[Dan O'meara]

I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

Do you believe Oswald did it all on his own?
If you do, I ridicule you.

[Martin Weidmann]

I ridicule ALL who disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  How can you deny the evidence?  It is overwhelming, sir+

Aha, just another fanatic who claims there is persuasive evidence but can never present it. Didn't you get the memo that says believing is something you do in church?

What evidence is there really, except for a rifle found at the TSBD, that can only tentatively be linked to Oswald?
The simple answer is; there is nothing more than that and a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Do you believe Oswald did it all on his own?
If you do, I ridicule you.

The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.

[Martin Weidmann]

The evidence he had help is?

About ten or so days before the assassination he goes in person to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the agent he believed was hassling his wife. When the agent is not there he instead leaves a rather provocative note. Someone who is working with others to shoot the president doesn't do that, do they? Why draw attention to yourself at that point? What was he going to do if the agent (Hosty) was there? Loudly confront him?

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. Does it still work?  He takes four bullets. Is that ammo still good too? But not his revolver. He gets a ride from a co-worker. He goes to the sniper's nest hoping - with no guarantee at all - that he will be alone. He waits for the president to pass by. When will that happen? He doesn't know whether any of this will work. Why not get a safe ride? A better rifle? More reliable ammunition?

I can go on. You know the details. All of this indicates a rather spontaneous last minute act. There is no planning. It's all thrown together hastily with little deliberation.

This seems clear (to me) it's a desperate act by a lone desperate person, with little foresight, little thought of what was going to happen.

He retrieves his rifle - not a very good one - the day before the assassination. He apparently didn't test it for the approximately two months it was stored in the garage. 

Nice story, but like much of the official narrative, there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Marina saying, in her testimony, that she once looked in the blanket, about a week after leaving New Orleans (late September 1963), and saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle, somehow morphes into "Oswald stored the MC rifle later found at the TSBD for two months in Ruth Paine's garage, where he picked it up on Thursday evening". But the evidence that this narrative is actually true is.... what, exactly?

[Richard Smith]

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.

The comparison between the conclusion that Oswald carried his rifle in the bag and Alan's baseless curtain rod theory is absurd.  To suggest those two events are both the result of "speculation" is laughable.  A rifle was found in the TSBD.  There is no doubt of that fact.  It was filmed.  It is a documented fact that the rifle was found on the 6th floor.  That rifle had a specific serial number that confirms it is the same rifle sent to Oswald's PO box.  Oswald is pictured holding a rifle that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald's prints are on the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.  Oswald made an unscheduled visit to the location where the rifle was kept on the night before the assassination.  He carried a long bag to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  His rifle is no longer in the Paine's garage when the DPD search it later that day.  A long bag is found next to the SN from which shots were fired.  It has Oswald's prints on it.  It can't be accounted for in any other way at that location except to contain the rifle.  No other long bag is ever found. Oswald's rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found in the TSBD.  He lies about ever even owning a rifle and provides no explanation for how his rifle came to be there.

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.  There are no photos of any such curtain rods being found there.  No witness ever came forward to confirm any such curtain rods were ever found.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods had ever been found at the TSBD.  No curtain rods are missing from Paine's garage.  Oswald did not ask Ruth Paine or Marina for any curtain rods.  Oswald himself denies carrying any curtain rods even though that would have been exculpatory to him.  Oswald's prints are not found on any curtain rods.  It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.