Then went inside with the curtain rods

[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......

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.

[Alan Ford]

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.

We already know what the nature of the cover-up was: to pin the assassination on Mr Oswald and Mr Oswald alone

[Alan Ford]

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

OK then, Mr Cakebread, give us your scenario, only this time incorporate the numbers 275 and 276 into it! 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

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?

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

[Dan O'meara]

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".