Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'
Very weak.
Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?
That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?
It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270.......... Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?
No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald). There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?
I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!
--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?
We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.
The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage. Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.
The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods. However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as
"Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htmThis could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods. Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.
The fact is that what you have here is a puzzle which clearly has pieces missing. Speculating about what those pieces are isn't going to help you solve the puzzle.