Then went inside with the curtain rods

[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.

[Alan Ford]

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.

So you posit four curtain rods in the Paine garage. Two are taken and submitted for zero-stakes testing 3/15, being assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Then on 3/24 the other two are taken and are also assigned the numbers 275 & 276. Brilliant.