Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

How can they have the same exhibit number but be different curtain rods?

Who says the numbers 275 & 276 on the Crime Scene Search Section sheet, which records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15/64, are exhibit numbers?

And feel free to explain to us how exactly the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 came to be assigned to the other two curtain rods, i.e. those extracted on-the-record from the Paine garage 3/23/64. How exactly were those two numbers arrived at, Mr Smith? Go on, tell us, it's a hoot!

 

[Martin Weidmann]

Would you like some fries with that nothingburger? Stop dodging. And stop trying to pass off this forum as a court of law.

Stop being so desperate for attention.

[Bill Chapman]

Stop being so desperate for attention.

Stop pretending that this forum is a court of law.

[John Iacoletti]

As usual you can't follow along.  That is the bag your contrarian brother suggests is just ordinary "paper for wrapping books." 

Are you suggesting that the paper that CE142 was made from was something other than paper from the wrapping table that was used to wrap books?  If so, that would be news to everybody.

Wow.  It is a singular bag.  It is found next to the SN.

Sure, and you have a photo with a dotted outline of a bag drawn on to prove it.   

  It has Oswald's prints on it.

And you have some evidence that this wrapping paper was taped into a "bag" prior to these alleged prints being placed on it?  Let's hear it.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

It is absurd to claim with ZERO evidence that a rifle was ever carried in it.

[John Iacoletti]

Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

No "lengths" are necessary.  You can either demonstrate that Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD or you cannot.

And you cannot.

Nobody cares about your Lincoln false equivalence.

[John Iacoletti]

In the form of good-natured insights. Clever, cut-to-the-quick insights I might add.

Wow, your delusions know no end.

[Richard Smith]

Who says the numbers 275 & 276 on the Crime Scene Search Section sheet, which records the submission of two curtain rods 3/15/64, are exhibit numbers?

And feel free to explain to us how exactly the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 came to be assigned to the other two curtain rods, i.e. those extracted on-the-record from the Paine garage 3/23/64. How exactly were those two numbers arrived at, Mr Smith? Go on, tell us, it's a hoot!

 

Are you really suggesting that the numbers 275 & 276 referenced on the crime scene form relating to two curtain rods could be something other than the exact same two numbers assigned by the WC to two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage?  Wow.   I know why you haven't taken this "evidence" to the NY Times but spend your time here.  Imagine spinning that nonsense to a sane person.

[John Iacoletti]

Lee Oswald did not need curtain rods. He never complained to his landlady about a lack of curtains in his rented room. His "alcove" (room) at the North Beckley boarding house had curtains in place and Venetian blinds. There is no evidence that Lee Oswald was contemplating a career as an interior decorator.

There is also no evidence that he carried a rifle in CE142 or any other container.

As for the room not needing curtain rods: