Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

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.

OK, then perhaps you can point me to the portion of Ms Paine's testimony where she--------or the interrogator----------makes reference to this kind donation from Ms Paine?

Even if you could (and you can't, because no such reference exists and such a donation is explicitly ruled out in what Ms Paine does say), why would just two out of four curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints ahead of the formal receipt of the other two curtain rods in the garage? Not one bit of this scenario makes any sense.

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.

It's perfectly simple, Mr Weidmann: a document was generated recording the submission 3/15 for fingerprint testing of two curtain rods; the negative result as to Mr Oswald's fingerprints being on the rods; the release of the rods 3/24. Whether any such testing actually took place (at least on these two rods) is moot.

Two curtain rods were however tested 3/25/64------the day AFTER the first pair of rods were officially released back to Agent Howlett.

I've asked you this before, but never got answer. Who is this TSBD employee who found the rods?

How the heck would I know?

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.

The employee will have been shown a copy of the document as 'proof' the matter was looked into thoroughly.

They simply could have ignored the matter as they did with so many other things.

Well, they evidently made a judgment call in this case that such would not be a smart course of action

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.

Well, given that you know nothing about said employee--------their personality, their status, their insistence, whether or not they had told others about the discovery----------your subjective feeling of doubt is neither here nor there.

[Alan Ford]

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.

Poor Mr O'Blazney is just another troubled individual............

and what, pray tell, mssr. 'prayerdude', explains your cognitive dissonance?  anybody but oswald.  i remember having a nice chat with mssr. bugliosi back in the day.  that, and other conversations changed my mind, for i was almost like you.  and then there was leo damore, whose book deprived ted kennedy of his mantle as president. and before that, lane and garrison, et. al.  they polluted the minds of millions...... MILLIONS !!!  mae  didn't help, either.  nor did sarah mcclendon, whose wheelchair i used to push into the white house for press conferences (they don't have press conferences anymore.....sigh+), passing notes to tim mccury from her.  oh, those were the days !!.  everything changed when W was illegally named 'the chief'.  they wouldn't let me in then after that numbskull was erected, as i had an FBI file, et. al., but she bellowed "the president shall hear of this !!"....... then they let me in. did you know she was responsible for an 11 million-dollar makeover in order to have handicapped people accessible into the white house? (read: americans with disabilities act)

[Martin Weidmann]

OK, then perhaps you can point me to the portion of Ms Paine's testimony where she--------or the interrogator----------makes reference to this kind donation from Ms Paine?

Even if you could (and you can't, because no such reference exists and such a donation is explicitly ruled out in what Ms Paine does say), why would just two out of four curtain rods found in the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints ahead of the formal receipt of the other two curtain rods in the garage? Not one bit of this scenario makes any sense.

I say to you what I just said to "Richard"; Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree it doesn't make sense, but neither does Howlett being able to find rods marked 275 and 276 in Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, when the DPD document, signed by him, and relied upon by you, shows he did not collect the rods marked 275 and 276 from the DPD until the next day.

Ruth Paine may not have mentioned it in her testimony, but the WC described the rods mentioned in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 as "received from Ruth Paine". Now, remember the WC report was released in September 1964. If the WC wanted to obscure something, why would they use that exact description in their own exhibit list?

It's perfectly simple, Mr Weidmann: a document was generated recording the submission 3/15 for fingerprint testing of two curtain rods; the negative result as to Mr Oswald's fingerprints being on the rods; the release of the rods 3/24. Whether any such testing actually took place (at least on these two rods) is moot.

Two curtain rods were however tested 3/25/64------the day AFTER the first pair of rods were officially released back to Agent Howlett.

So, if what you say is true, there was some shenanigans going on, much like what happened with the BY photo that was shown by a FBI agent to Michael Paine on Friday evening, when the official record says the photo(s) were only found on Saturday afternoon.

How the heck would I know?

I don't know, but you are the one claiming a TSBD employee found those rods, noticed the markings 275 and 276, thus forcing Howlett and Day to engage in some sort of cover up. When you make a claim like that it's not unreasonable to think that you must at least know who the employee was.... That is, of course, unless you are just making it all up!

The employee will have been shown a copy of the document as 'proof' the matter was looked into thoroughly.

Another assumption for which you don't have a shred of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever since no law enforcement officers goes back to somebody who found something, just to justify how it was followed up.

Well, they evidently made a judgment call in this case that such would not be a smart course of action

"Evidently"?... Another assumption! And who are "they"?

Well, given that you know nothing about said employee--------their personality, their status, their insistence, whether or not they had told others about the discovery----------your subjective feeling of doubt is neither here nor there.

Given the fact that you know nothing about the alleged employee, your highly speculative and subjective opinion is even less valid. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to convince you of something, where you are making one claim after another. If you want to be believed, you should at least be able to back it up with a bit more evidence than a DPD document and a theory.

[Richard Smith]

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.

Once again, you're missing the point. The comparision was about a broken down MC rifle being concealed in the bag Oswald carried. No matter how much spin you put on it, you have not a shred of evidence there ever was a broken rifle of any kind in the bag Oswald carried, nor have you a shred of evidence that the bag found at the TSBD was the same bag Oswald carried.

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.

All this is part of a narrative for which there isn't a shred of evidence. You can not present any evidence that shows that;

- any rifle was sent to Oswald's PO box.
- the serial number handwritten on an internal documents of Klein's was actually written on it prior to the assassination
- that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY pictures is actually the same one found at the TSBD or that he owned it
- Oswald's print (not prints!) was found on the MC rifle. All you have is an evidence card with his print on it, produced by Day a week after the assissination.
- Oswald kept a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.

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.

More BS.. the mere fact that you can not account for some things in any other way doesn't mean any of what you have written is actually true.

In short, you are using a concocted narrative based on very little physical evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald must have carried the MC rifle to work on Friday morning and are calling it "a logical inference".

In contrast, there are no such facts that support the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD as Alan suggests.

There is no contrast. You are calling all sorts of speculative assumptions "facts" which they clearly are not!

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.

That's a fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is completely baseless in every respect in complete contrast to the situation with the rifle.

Only in your biased mind.

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 being your usual contrarian self, why don't you try to provide us with an explanation, other that the silly "they got the dates wrong" crap?

Again, you argue there is "no evidence" by applying an impossible standard of proof to the actual evidence.   For example, you contend that there is "no evidence" that a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  But Klein's confirms that they received an order and sent a specific MC rifle to a PO Box that belonged to Oswald.  Are they lying?  What happened to this rifle if it didn't go to Oswald since it was sent to his PO Box?  You try to cast doubt on the serial number because it was in handwriting.  LOL. The rifle was found in Oswald's place of employment.  It has the same serial number.  It's difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence to link Oswald to this rifle than exists.  Because he was in the commission of a crime, Oswald took some measures to conceal his activities.  Like not carrying his rifle in the open but putting it into a bag.  It is simply absurd to dismiss all this evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the rifle because no one had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag or a time machine.  All the more astounding is that in dismissing all the evidence that links Oswald to the rifle, you imply all this evidence is suspect while still denying that you are a CTer.  It is just a lazy way of playing the endless contrarian.  This kind of stuff just happens again and again to implicate Oswald.   Much of this evidence is discovered at the crime scene or very shortly thereafter.  But we are supposed to entertain the baseless contention that it was all somehow produced and planted within hours?  But you are not a CTer?  Weak sauce.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, you argue there is "no evidence" by applying an impossible standard of proof to the actual evidence.   For example, you contend that there is "no evidence" that a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  But Klein's confirms that they received an order and sent a specific MC rifle to a PO Box that belonged to Oswald.  Are they lying? 

That's a misrepresentation of the facts. Klein's never confirmed that they sent a rifle to a PO box belonging to Oswald. What really happened was that William Waldman, who had no direct involvement in the rifle retail side of the business, was shown a number of (photocopies of) documents and was asked to explain their meaning. He confirmed that some of the markings on the document indicated that a rifle was shipped. Waldman was in no position to actually confirm that a rifle had really been shipped. So, he wasn't lying. He just told the WC what was on the documents. But maybe the difference between the two is difficult for you to understand.

Why did the WC not take testimony from the person who actually wrote the serial numbers on Waldman 7 and actually packed and shipped the rifle? That would have been direct evidence, yet, for some reason, the WC wasn't interested and you don't find that strange?

What happened to this rifle if it didn't go to Oswald since it was sent to his PO Box? 

Show us the actual shipping documents by Parcel Post, something like a reciept made out by Parcel Post, and perhaps we'll find out together. Oh wait, there are no such documents. Oops!

You try to cast doubt on the serial number because it was in handwriting.  LOL. The rifle was found in Oswald's place of employment.  It has the same serial number.  It's difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence to link Oswald to this rifle than exists. 

It goes both ways. One way is "the rifle was found at the TSBD, so Oswald must have killed Kennedy" or, alternatively, "the rifle was found at the TSBD, where it was planted to implicate Oswald in the murder". Both versions work and thus the entire argument is moot and meaningless.

Because he was in the commission of a crime, Oswald took some measures to conceal his activities.  Like not carrying his rifle in the open but putting it into a bag. 

Your conclusion is based on the pre-determined conclusion that Oswald committed the crime.

It is simply absurd to dismiss all this evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the rifle because no one had x-ray vision to confirm the contents of his bag or a time machine. 

The only "evidence" that tentatively links Oswald to the rifle is the opinion of a Questioned Documents expert who claims that the minimal writing on a photo copy of the Klein's order form, the envelope and money order, is Oswald's. And even that doesn't mean it was actually Oswald who ordered the rifle for himself.

All the more astounding is that in dismissing all the evidence that links Oswald to the rifle, you imply all this evidence is suspect while still denying that you are a CTer.  It is just a lazy way of playing the endless contrarian.  This kind of stuff just happens again and again to implicate Oswald.   Much of this evidence is discovered at the crime scene or very shortly thereafter.  But we are supposed to entertain the baseless contention that it was all somehow produced and planted within hours?  But you are not a CTer?  Weak sauce.

CE 399 was allegedly found at Parkland Hospital on day one, yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that the bullet now in evidence was the one found at Parkland Hospital. On the other hand, there is evidence that clearly contradicts that conclusion. Whatever evidence they found at the crime scene or shortly after the murder(s) lacks in most cases authentication and a sound chain of custody. You don't have to be a CT to see the obvious. Be it Wright, telling Joshia Thompson that the bullet he saw did not resemble the one now in evidence as CE 399, or the massive effort made by General Walker to convince the HSCA that the bullet now known as the Walker bullet was in fact not the same one that was taken from his home, or S.A. Odum who denied that he ever had or showed CE 399 to anyone in April 1964, as the FBI had falsely told the WC... the list goes on and on... Only a fanatical fool would take that kind evidence at face value.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

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.

Provacative note?... We don't know for sure what that note said, because according tp Hosty, it was destroyed on orders from FBI headquarters. AFTER the murder of president Kennedy.   This act of destruction of evidence was a felony....And we can logically assume the note contained information that Hoover didn't want the pissants to know....

Perhaps you don't know what Hosty himself said about that note....Hosty said that Lee Oswald wanted Hosty to come to see him....

 Lee Oswald wrote: .....
"My wife is a Russian citizen who is here in this country legally and she is protected under diplomatic lawsfrom harassment by you or any other FBI agent. The FBI is no better than the Gestapo of Nazi Germany. If you wanted to talk to me, you should have come directly to me, not my wife. You never responded to my request."

Provocative ?....Yes, perhaps mildly.... but IMO it's more of an angry requet intended to prompt Hosty into action....What action?..

"you should have come directly to me, not my wife. You never responded to my request."

Lee had sent a note to HL Hunt on November the 8th....requesting "information " about what Mr hunt wanted him to do"

Then on November 12 He sent a note to Hosty that said in closing..."YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MY REQUEST"  so obviously Lee had requested that Hosty come to see him.... in person..but Hosty went to Irving and tried to talk to Marina, and actually talked to Ruth Paine.  ( That pissed Lee off)

You may recall that Lee had just returned from Mexico City so he quite likely had some information that he wanted to give to the FBI.

On November 17th Lee sent a poorly constructed telex to the FBI office in New Orleans ( Warren De Bruey's had been his handler in NO before he departed for Mexico City.) The telex had many misspelled words, and type overs.....because Lee was using the telex machine in the TSBD in the wee hours of the morning...1:45 am) ( He probably was typing while using a flashlight.)   The Telex on November 17th revealed a desperate attempt to inform the FBI that a a Militant revolutionary group may attempt to assinate (sic) president Kennedy on his proposed trip to Dallas Texas XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX November twentytwo dash twentythree nineteen sictythree.

Summary...

11/ ? / 63---- Lee sent a note to Hosty requesting a meeting....  Non productive.

11/11/ 63----  Lee sent a note to HL Hunt requesting a meeting....

11/12 / 63---- Lee sent another note to Hosty requesting a meeting  ....non productive

11/ 17 /63---- Lee sent a telex to FBI office in New Orleans...  Non productive 

[Alan Ford]

I say to you what I just said to "Richard"; Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree it doesn't make sense, but neither does Howlett being able to find rods marked 275 and 276 in Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, when the DPD document, signed by him, and relied upon by you, shows he did not collect the rods marked 275 and 276 from the DPD until the next day.

Ruth Paine may not have mentioned it in her testimony, but the WC described the rods mentioned in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 as "received from Ruth Paine". Now, remember the WC report was released in September 1964. If the WC wanted to obscure something, why would they use that exact description in their own exhibit list?

So you're suggesting the WC is telling us that
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine on or prior to 3/15 and these rods were marked 275 & 276
---------two curtain rods were received from Ms Paine's garage on 3/23 and these rods were also, quite by coincidence, marked 275 & 276?

So, if what you say is true, there was some shenanigans going on, much like what happened with the BY photo that was shown by a FBI agent to Michael Paine on Friday evening, when the official record says the photo(s) were only found on Saturday afternoon.

I don't know, but you are the one claiming a TSBD employee found those rods, noticed the markings 275 and 276, thus forcing Howlett and Day to engage in some sort of cover up. When you make a claim like that it's not unreasonable to think that you must at least know who the employee was....

Why so?

Again I remind you, Mr Weidmann: neither you nor anyone else can suggest a location other than the Depository where two curtain rods turning up would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. My commonsense logical inference trumps your complete inability to come up with a single counter-scenario.

Another assumption for which you don't have a shred of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever since no law enforcement officers goes back to somebody who found something, just to justify how it was followed up.

Nonsense

"Evidently"?... Another assumption! And who are "they"?

Given the fact that you know nothing about the alleged employee, your highly speculative and subjective opinion is even less valid. The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to convince you of something

Yes you are. You are trying to convince me that your inability to
----------explain the data on the Crime Scene Search Section form
----------offer an alternative location for discovery of the curtain rods such that their testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise
----------explain the bizarre decision of the WC to start numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits taken 3/23 at 270
puts you in a strong position to critique my coherent explanation of all the elements of this issue.