Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.

And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?

[Richard Smith]

And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?

Again, if you believe that you have a document that confirms a conspiracy into the murder of President Kennedy, why waste your time on this forum endlessly posting that same document over and over again and asking the same questions while ignoring any contrary explanation.  Let me help you:

https://www.nytimes.com/tips

[Martin Weidmann]

And so Mr Smith folds.

Anyone else want to try explaining the document?

Didn't I just give a possible explanation?

[Martin Weidmann]

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.

Why do you always run back to this default "suggesting a massive conspiracy" nonsense.

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, are you suggesting that it was so perfect that no mistakes were ever made by anybody involved it? And, since a conspiracy would go hand in hand with a cover up, why would it matter if any mistakes were made, when the evidence was supposed to be locked away at the National Archives for 75 years?

A few posts back I give a possible explanation for the different release dates (one on the original document and another on a carbon copy of that same document). That explanation suggests that Howlett did in fact collect the curtain rods on 3/24/63 and that Lt Day signed a carbon copy with the date 3/26/64, which ended up in the WC evidence collection.

Why not keep the conversation going and try to deal with that?

[Zeon Mason]

Here is my suspicion: Oswald took the entire bag (with Tag label containing Mrs Paines address ) containing rods and some blinds from Mrs Paines garage.

 Entering the door of the roofed enclosed dock bldg about 20 seconds ahead of BW Frazier, Oswald hid the  bag in some container before entering TSBD back door at which point, Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswalds hands

Oswald of course forgot about his bag of rods and blinds in his anxious departure from TSBD at the post assassination time.

The Bag was discovered by some TSBD employee weeks or month later, , and if there  was an address of  Paine residence on it, The bag may have been submitted as “lost item” at 1st until  someone higher up in the CYA DPD immediately understood the significance of this bag and took charge of the item to “return it” to the owner.

I can’t remember if Mrs Paine was on vacation   but if so, that would be probably when the bag would likely have been returned without her knowledge.

In effect, someone dedicated to the WC narrative of Oswald bag containing MC  rifle, decided it was imperative  to get this bag of rods and blinds back into the Paines garage ASAP and pray that Mrs Paine was unaware the bag had ever been removed

Then they would CYA again  with a fake”inspection” of Mrs Paines garage on the date she returns from vacation, in order to create false “proof” that no bag,rods or other items were missing from Mrs Paines garage, this securing the WC paper bag made with TSBD paper by Oswald to carry his rifle into TSBD on Nov 22/63

[Alan Ford]

I am not 100% sure about this, but it seems to me that the submission form used must have had carbon copies. As it is a receipt, it could very well be that the original was kept by the officer who submitted the evidence and the other(s) remained with the DPD.

The original stayed with DPD, and (one presumes) one carbon copy also stayed with DPD and a second was given to Agent Howlett.

Obviously the part "Specimen released to" would not have been filled out at that time.

Exactly! Mr Colin Crow did some fine work on this a while back.

When Howlett collected the curtain rods from Lt Day, on 3/24/63, the original copy of the document was used to fill in the details in the part "Specimen released to". That's the one Alan is referring to.

A carbon copy (which later became CE 1952) was later dated 3/26/63 and also counter signed by Day, but without noting the name of the person to which the evidence was being released.

Exactly! And--------NB----------this was the version that was made public in the Warren vols.

I am suggesting that Agent Howlett took away a carbon copy of the fully completed (and countersigned) original form ("submitted": 3/15, "released": 3/24) and showed it to whichever Depository employee had come forward with the curtain rods.

That might explain the discrepancy between the two forms. It does of course justify the question why a carbon copy form was used to document a second (later) date?

Yes, as well as the continued question why two curtain rods were formally submitted 3/15 for fingerprint testing for Mr Oswald's prints and formally released 3/24.

[Alan Ford]

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.

Why do you always run back to this default "suggesting a massive conspiracy" nonsense.

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, are you suggesting that it was so perfect that no mistakes were ever made by anybody involved it? And, since a conspiracy would go hand in hand with a cover up, why would it matter if any mistakes were made, when the evidence was supposed to be locked away at the National Archives for 75 years?

A few posts back I give a possible explanation for the different release dates (one on the original document and another on a carbon copy of that same document). That explanation suggests that Howlett did in fact collect the curtain rods on 3/24/63 and that Lt Day signed a carbon copy with the date 3/26/64, which ended up in the WC evidence collection.

Why not keep the conversation going and try to deal with that?

Because all Mr Smith can come up with is the rather desperate theory that BOTH dates on the original form are a 'mistake'!

Maybe his next suggestion will be that the signed names are a 'mistake' too? This is how LNers tune out counter-fairytale data.

[Alan Ford]

From WC testimony of Ms Ruth Paine, taken at her Irving residence 3/23-------------

Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."
(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)

Question! Why did they choose the number 270 to begin marking this series of exhibits?

Answer! This entire needless testimony session at the Paine home was centered around ONE objective: to have in the official record two curtain rods marked 275 & 276. Because the two curtain rods submitted for fingerprint testing eight days previously were marked with (on one) the digits 2-7-5 and (on the other) 2-7-6.