Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Bill Chapman]

Who says I was quoting him verbatim?
The quotation marks around the sentence says you tried to make it look like you were indeed quoting him verbatim.

Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
That's not the argument. What you need to justify is in the way you phrased it.

Your quote: 'Just like Bugliosi's "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President"'

[Bill Chapman]

Feel free to point out that which would cause a person shame or embarrassment in regards Tony.
He felt free to reveal it to me; and Waldo showed genuine concern so I passed it along at his request.

Bla bla bla... Tony apparently told you in a private message. If he wanted to have it all over the forum, he would have posted it himself.

I personally worry about those hereabouts who are absent for long periods.
BTW I asked Jerry Organ about Waldo's lengthy absence a few weeks ago.
Ask Jerry if you don't believe me.

As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems.
So how can we miss you if you won't go away?

Nice pivot...as to the latter part; If true - which it isn't - wouldn't you also need to be here 24/7 to notice? Ever thought about that before you made that pathetic comment, genius?

 

My quote: "As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems"

You missed the it seems professor.
Sigh, guess I'll have to school you again: It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

[Dan O'meara]

Well, we're not talking about some member of the public/someone off the street but a Depository employee. Tricky business.

An employee of the TSBD is just a member of the public but even if they're not, the DPD don't have to fake a document to impress an employee of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense. However...

My working hypothesis is that there were two sets of curtain rods, one set found in the Depository, the other taken from the Paine garage. The latter set were tested on 11/25-----------



The original document (with release date 3/24) was not made public (and only came to light in the 1990s!)

IMO this was to merge the rods found at the Depository (which were marked with the digits 275 & 276) with the rods taken from the Paine garage (which--------in a blatant contrivance--------were 'marked' as Exhibits 275 & 276). Those numbers are a real giveaway.

Again, I believe we are dealing two different sets of rods.

...this does make sense, to a large extent, but there's still a lot of uncertainty:

Why do two curtain rods come in four pieces?
Is there any other evidence that the rods were found in the TSBD other than Fraziers' mystery caller?
How is Rankin's letter to Hoover tied into this?
Why the change of release date by Day?

At the very least you've demonstrated corruption in the processing of evidence but it would be satisfying to have an interpretation of the various documents that didn't leave so many tricky questions.

PS: What is the latest doc you posted?

[Martin Weidmann]

My quote: "As for you, you are here 24/7/365 it seems"

You missed the it seems professor.
Sigh, guess I'll have to school you again: It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

Jumping to the wrong conclusion again, I see...

I never log out, so as long as my pc, or one of the others in the network, is running, you'll see my name in the list. Doesn't mean I'm actually there.

[Alan Ford]

An employee of the TSBD is just a member of the public but even if they're not, the DPD don't have to fake a document to impress an employee of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense.

They're not trying to impress the employee but to show them documentary evidence that will satisfy them that the matter has been looked into and there's nothing to see here. This witness, if not satisfied, could go public and cause a MAJOR headache.

And I don't believe the original form is fake: it records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15, their testing negative for Mr Oswald's prints, and their release 3/24. They were never seen again.

However...

...this does make sense, to a large extent, but there's still a lot of uncertainty:

Why do two curtain rods come in four pieces?

Each rod extends out.

Is there any other evidence that the rods were found in the TSBD other than Fraziers' mystery caller?

The "Crime Scene Search Section" document is evidence. I can't think of any other location where the finding of two curtain rods would require testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

How is Rankin's letter to Hoover tied into this?

Panic at the highest levels over curtain rods at just the time two curtain rods are submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints!

Why the change of release date by Day?

So that the public version will have a release date post-3/25 (the date the Paine rods were tested)?

At the very least you've demonstrated corruption in the processing of evidence but it would be satisfying to have an interpretation of the various documents that didn't leave so many tricky questions.

PS: What is the latest doc you posted?

Lt. Day's print card for one of the rods

[Alan Ford]

It seems every time I'm here so are you. Got it?

Jumping to the wrong conclusion again, I see...

I never log out, so as long as my pc, or one of the others in the network, is running, you'll see my name in the list. Doesn't mean I'm actually there.

How about you two find a room?

[Martin Weidmann]

Who says I was quoting him verbatim?
The quotation marks around the sentence says you tried to make it look like you were indeed quoting him verbatim.

Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?
That's not the argument. What you need to justify is in the way you phrased it.

Speech marks do not always signify a verbatim quote. The give away in this case was that part I atributed to "Richard", also using speech marks, when it was obvious that it was not verbatim but merely a way to distinguish from my own writing.

The way I phrased it was correct. Bugs did include the leaving behind of the wedding wring as one of the 53 pieces of evidence allegedly showing Oswald's guilt. And that was precisely the point I was making. I can't help it when your comprehension problems prevent you from understanding something so basic.

[Martin Weidmann]

How about you two find a room?

No thanks... being with Chapman on the same forum is bad enough.

Look at it this way; I keep him occupied so he can't bother you with his BS