Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

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.

My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.

[Martin Weidmann]

My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.

Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them? How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was? And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?

[Alan Ford]

Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them?

Not necessarily

How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was?

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

Not necessarily

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

You don't know this with any kind of certainty. It's just a selfserving claim, when in fact the WC in it's evidence list described the rods as "received from Mrs. Paine" thus disproving your claim that there is no other possible explanation. Obviously you don't accept that explanation, but it is an alternative source nevertheless.

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but you seem to be all over the place. First you ask me to provide "another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING", only to now say that there is no evidence the rods were ever properly tested and that Lt Day would not have recorded the results honestly. It doesn't add up.

I've asked you this before, but never got answer. Who is this TSBD employee who found the rods? Also, what would be the point to go through the charade of having the rods tested for prints?. Only just in case a TSBD employee might say something? It seems too far fetched, as this happened in March and the WC report wasn't released in September, with all the evidence being locked away, initially, for 75 years. They simply could have ignored the matter as they did with so many other things. They buried the Stroud letter and that was far more significant. There was IMO no need to actually put on the charade you are suggesting. Even less so, when they subsequently put in the exhibit description of the DPD document that the rods were received from Ruth Paine.

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

And why in the world would they have been removed from the bag? There simply is no plausible reason for it. As for Lt Day and Secret Service Agent not being interested in finding exculpatory evidence, if that's true than why go through the charade in the first place and generate paperwork. Just because they were worried about what this unnamed TSBD employee might say in the future? Really? I seriously doubt it.

[Bill Chapman]

You CTers would piss yourselves if the curtain rod thing hadn't been investigated. Same thing goes for the paraffin tests, which were largely useless in that era*.

And what things haven't been investigated? Oh, yeah: CTer pet theories. So call a press conference, already.

*Firearm Factoids/MacAdams

[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?