Then went inside with the curtain rods

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

We are going round in circles. The mere fact that you think it is likely that the rods Howlett submitted to Day on 15 March 1964 were found at the TSBD doesn't make it so. There simply is not enough information to determine if your opinion is correct or not.

[Alan Ford]

We are going round in circles. The mere fact that you think it is likely that the rods Howlett submitted to Day on 15 March 1964 were found at the TSBD doesn't make it so. There simply is not enough information to determine if your opinion is correct or not.

I can't force you to draw the obvious logical inference from the known information, Mr Weidmann. All I can do is note that you have not offered even the beginnings of a viable alternative explanation for said known information.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

Don't put words in my mouth Mr F.....   I said nothing about the numbers....I merely offered a logical reason that someone may have wanted to know if lee prints were on the curtain rods in Paines garage.

[Alan Ford]

Don't put words in my mouth Mr F.....   I said nothing about the numbers....

You were wise not to------------they make a nonsense of your already nonsensical scenario

[Martin Weidmann]

I can't force you to draw the obvious logical inference from the known information, Mr Weidmann. All I can do is note that you have not offered even the beginnings of a viable alternative explanation for said known information.

Not the way it works, Mr Ford.

A so-called "logical inference" only comes into play when there is not sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

[Alan Ford]

Not the way it works, Mr Ford.

A so-called "logical inference" only comes into play when there is not sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

A logical inference comes into play when there is sufficient evidence to justify a logical inference. Such is the case here.

Rejecting this logical inference (in the absence of any counter-explanations of your own) is tantamount to saying 'I refuse to accept the claim of a cover-up because you cannot provide the kind of full documentary record that would have been available had there not been a cover-up'. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

[Walt Cakebread]

You were wise not to------------they make a nonsense of your already nonsensical scenario

I believe most readers think that your scenario is nonsense......