Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

HA HA HA.

So you can't explain the information and dates on the document? Got it, Mr Smith. Another triumph for you! 

[Richard Smith]

So you can't explain the information and dates on the document? Got it, Mr Smith. Another triumph for you! 

Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.

[Alan Ford]

Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.

~Grin~

Let us know when you come up with an explanation, Mr Smith! 

[Martin Weidmann]

Can you explain why the authorities who you falsely believe framed Oswald and successfully suppressed his curtain rods would suddenly months later on their own motion bring them to light and even test them for fingerprints?  Can you make sense of that crazy narrative?  Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?  How would they forever silence the person who found them?  Do you even realize how absurd it is to suggest that is what happened? Let me guess.  No.  You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form and filling in the details to suit your fantasy.

Why would they test curtain rods for Oswald's prints under that circumstance?

Maybe you should ask them (whoever they are) as the document shows it happened. So, why don't you deal with that and come up with a plausible explanation?

You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form

So, why don't you provide another interpretation?

Oh wait, did I just ask you for an answer? When will I ever learn....

[Richard Smith]

You are clinging desperately to one pedantic interpretation of a form

So, why don't you provide another interpretation?

Oh wait, did I just ask you for an answer? When will I ever learn....

Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.

[Walt Cakebread]

Indeed so, Mr Weidmann-------------------the Warren Gullibles are a funny bunch. You make a claim and they say 'You've no evidence!'. You show them evidence and they say 'No way would your evil conspirators have allowed this evidence to exist therefore it's not evidence!'

My dear Mr Ford.... I sincerely hope that you will accept this as constructive criticism  , because I believe that you have the potential to be a real asset in exposing the truth.  ...BUT ....You could be describing yourself  'You've no evidence!'. You show them him evidence and theyhe says...No Way....

[Martin Weidmann]

Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.

That's what I thought. Hiding behind the "you would dismiss it anyway" excuse...

I asked you to provide another interpretation. It doesn't matter if it's speculation or not. I merely want to find out why you dismiss one interpretation, yet can or will not provide another one. Saying it makes no sense is just a cop out. Parts of the WC narrative make no sense to me either, so is that the "end of story" also?

Go on, then, give us another interpretation...  Perhaps I agree with you. Who knows?

And, "Richard", let's not forget that anybody who dismisses something out of hand and not gives and alternative interpretation, is, by your own definition, a contrarian!

[Alan Ford]

Then what?  You would dismiss it as "speculation" and we would go round and round down the rabbit hole.  The narrative suggested makes no sense.  End of story.

So give us a narrative that
a) explains the information and dates on the document
b) makes sense to you.

Should be no trouble to a man of your formidable intellect and moral courage!