Then went inside with the curtain rods

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

I'm not suggesting anything. I am merely stating known facts.

Fact 1: In it's exhibit's list the WC stated that the curtain rods refered to in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 were received from Ruth Paine
Fact 2: Ruth Paine's testimony of 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage.

Fact 3: those two facts can not involve the same curtain rods as the DPD document shows that Howlett did not collect the rods submitted on the 15th until 24 March 1964. In other words; the same set of curtain rods can not be a two locations at the same time.

Why so?

Why so what?

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.

Your "commonsense logical inference" is an assumption that trumps nothing. You are acting like a "I'm right if you can't prove me wrong" LN.

Nonsense

Do you know any investigators who go back and report to what they did with the evidence to the person who found it? I seriously doubt it.

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.

No, I am not trying to convince you of any of that. I am telling you that your so-called "coherent explanantion" is nothing more than wild speculation, with no probative value, which completely fails to persuade anybody. As far as I am concerned you can be as stubborn as you like. It doesn't alter the fact that you are doing exactly what the LNs are being accused of all the time.

I have no horse in this race. From the beginning I have said that you were raising a legitmate question by pointing out the discrepancy between the DPD document and the content of Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, as far as the basic point is concerned I'm fully on your side. Where you lost me was when you started speculating and presenting it as fact. And if you can't even persuade somebody who agrees with you on the basics, you don't stand a chance of persuading anybody else.

[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.

Mr G, I'd suggest that you read your own post....With an open mind.

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?

[Alan Ford]

I'm not suggesting anything. I am merely stating known facts.

Fact 1: In it's exhibit's list the WC stated that the curtain rods refered to in the DPD document of 15 March 1964 were received from Ruth Paine
Fact 2: Ruth Paine's testimony of 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage.

Fact 3: those two facts can not involve the same curtain rods as the DPD document shows that Howlett did not collect the rods submitted on the 15th until 24 March 1964. In other words; the same set of curtain rods can not be a two locations at the same time.

And yet these two different sets of curtain rods both come attached with the numbers 275 & 276. Ain't that a thing!

No, I am not trying to convince you of any of that. I am telling you that your so-called "coherent explanantion" is nothing more than wild speculation

So:
----------------on the one hand you can't offer any alternative location to the Depository where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
----------------on the other hand you label the proposal that the Depository is the only location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints as 'wild speculation'.

This is not a strong argument, Mr Weidmann.

[Martin Weidmann]

And yet these two different sets of curtain rods both come attached with the numbers 275 & 276. Ain't that a thing!

Indeed.

So:
----------------on the one hand you can't offer any alternative location to the Depository where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
----------------on the other hand you label the proposal that the Depository is the only location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints as 'wild speculation'.

This is not a strong argument, Mr Weidmann.

Just to make this clear once and for all, I am not arguing that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD. I simply do not know, due to a lack of information. It is you who is trying to convince me that curtain rods were found at the TSBD, but you can not say who found them, how Secret Service Agent Howlett got them and why he and Lt Day allegedly conspired together to manipulate the record without either telling their superiors.

Btw repeating the same flawed speculation over and over again doesn't make a strong argument either.

[Alan Ford]

Just to make this clear once and for all, I am not arguing that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD. I simply do not know, due to a lack of information.

But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

This means the claim that Mr Oswald brought no curtain rods to work the morning of 11/22/63 is unsafe.

[Walt Cakebread]

But we have the key information: the rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints. This means they must have been found at a location that merited their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints. And the only such location I, you or anyone else can think of is the Depository. Because the evidentiary stakes of a fingerprint test on rods found anywhere else would be zero.

This means the claim that Mr Oswald brought no curtain rods to work the morning of 11/22/63 is unsafe.

Someone might have wanted to know if there was any evidence that could support Fraziers statement that Lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the paper sack.  If Lee had in fact taken a set of curtain rods from the Paines garage he likely would have handled other curtain rods that were in the same bundle. ....thus leaving his prints on the curtain rods that were left behind in the garage.    If Lee's prints had been found it could support Frazier's story.