Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Nope------but I do think you need to seek help with your reading skills! 

 

 

Not alone can Mr. Smith not read, he embarrasses himself further by NOT offering an explanation why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits!

He also wants us to think it's a pure freaky coincidence that----------------

a) the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
b) Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.

Like I say: 

The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276."  Again "marked".   "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.   You wouldn't measure an object and then reference its length as being "marked" by the length.  HA HA HA.  Good grief.  Do you have no shame?

[Alan Ford]

The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276."  Again "marked".   "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.

 

In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:

1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

Oh, how the lowly have fallen!

 

[Richard Smith]

In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:

1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

Oh, how the lowly have fallen!

 

Unreal.  Let's go over this very slowly.

1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276.  Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.
3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.
4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.
5)  The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)
6)  Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?


Lastly, there is an enormous logic fallacy to this conspiracy fantasy.  It would have us believe that four months after successfully framing Oswald for the crime including debunking his story to Frazier that he carried curtain rods that morning (a story that Oswald himself denied he told Frazier) and instead had his rifle in the bag, that the authorities would on their own volition document and bring to light those very same curtain rods that they are tried so hard to suppress.  To check for Oswald's prints!  Wow.  You should be ashamed.

[Alan Ford]

Unreal.  Let's go over this very slowly.

1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276.  Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.

~Grin~

If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!

3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.

Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!

4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.

 

The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)

Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! 

6)  Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?

And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!

 

Let's have another go, shall we?

1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?

 

[Richard Smith]

~Grin~

If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!

Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!

 



Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! 

And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!

 

Let's have another go, shall we?

1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?

 

What are you babbling about here?   There is no 27.5 on that document.  None.  And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276.  Not 27.5 or even 27.6.  It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA.  There is no unit of length indicated on this document.  It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home.   If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.

[Alan Ford]

What are you babbling about here?   There is no 27.5 on that document.  None.  And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276.  Not 27.5 or even 27.6.  It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA.  There is no unit of length indicated on this document.  It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home.   If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.

~Grin~

And what do you think your conclusion might be, Mr. Smith, if you weren't blind and mentally challenged?

[Alan Ford]

And then we have the dates/times, and the fact that there are two different versions of the form:



The Warren Gullibles' solution is that Lt. Day got BOTH dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable. To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative submission date to take the place of 15 March!

Here, by contrast, is a grown-up starting point for solving the conundrum presented by these forms:

A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.

So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form as it looked BEFORE "& 276" and the RELEASE sign-out details have been added. The TSBD person is therefore given a copy looking like this: