Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

The form that has now been posted at least a thousand times references the same WC numbers given to the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.  There is no doubt they are one and the same.  There is no evidence whatsoever that any curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  None.  In fact, Truly confirmed in Sept. '64 that no curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD.  The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date.  Is the date wrong?  When was the date entered?  Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date?   That may all be fodder for nutty CTers but as a narrative for a conspiracy it makes no sense for the authorities to suppress curtain rods to frame Oswald and then bring them to light months later to check for Oswald's prints. And conveniently document this process on a form.  The very last thing they would have ever done.  And then somehow in this fantasy they somehow convince the person who discovered the curtain rods to remain silent while also convincing Truly to lie that no such curtain rods were ever found.  And on and on.  Same old nonsense.

[John Iacoletti]

The only unknown here is the investigative process behind the scenes relating to the date.  Is the date wrong?  When was the date entered?  Why is there a second form that is a duplicate/copy that has a different date?

[Alan Ford]

Excellent.
So let's see if I can take it a step further.



On the 15th the rods are submitted.
Using a red pen Day fills in the details:

Date of submission etc.
The description of what has been submitted.
The "Examination Request" - "Check for prints"
His signature to confirm he received the specimen.
Howlett signs as the officer submitting the specimen.

Once he has completed his examination he writes the result at the bottom.
After this the two documents are separated and filled in differently.

Still on track?

 

(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)

[Alan Ford]

Admittedly, the photo is of poor quality, but those look like the old lace curtains to me.  And "she had the old rod taken down" implies that she didn't do that herself.  This doesn't look at all like what Johnson is quoted as describing in J. Edgar's helpful memo.

It has been suggested by (IIRC) Mr Anthony Marsh that Mr Oswald wanted heavier, darker curtains and realized such would need stronger rods

[Dan O'meara]

(And thank you for using imgbox--------I can see this image!)

Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.

So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276

[Alan Ford]

Nice one.
I think I'm getting where you're coming from.

So, when the rods were submitted on 3/15/64 they were already marked with Warren Commission Exhibit Numbers 275 and 276

No, the Warren Commission Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 had already been assigned elsewhere (during Mr Robert Oswald's WC testimony in February), and the assigning of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 was still eight days in the future.

The rods submitted to the lab 3/15/64 were marked (for whatever non-WC-related reason) with the numbers 275 and 276. This is what necessitated the later blatantly contrived creation of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276. The 'marking' of two curtain rods as such was the entire point of the testimony session in Irving 3/23/64

[Dan O'meara]

No, the Warren Commission Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 had already been assigned elsewhere (during Mr Robert Oswald's WC testimony in February), and the assigning of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276 was still eight days in the future.

The rods submitted to the lab 3/15/64 were marked (for whatever non-WC-related reason) with the numbers 275 and 276. This is what necessitated the later blatantly contrived creation of Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos 275 & 276. The 'marking' of two curtain rods as such was the entire point of the testimony session in Irving 3/23/64

And off to Tinfoil Fantasyland we go...

Ruth Paine's house, 3/23/64

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

So the two rods taken from Ruth Paine's house are marked Ruth Paine exhibits 275 and 276
The two curtain rods on the dubious DPD report are marked 275 and 276
Common sense would tell us that these are one and the same rods.
But not in Tinfoil Fantasyland.

In this other realm two rods are submitted to Day by Agent Howlett. How they came into Agent Howlett's possession cannot be explained. (Back in the real world Howlett takes charge of them at Ruth Paine's house and delivers them to Day)
Someone has scribbled the numbers 275 and 276 on the rods for no known reason, this cannot be explained. (Back in the real world they are "marked" for identification. That's why Day bothers to mention it.)
Rather than just ignore these random numbers or erase them, a massively elaborate hoax is put in motion, the reason for which cannot be explained. (Back in the real world the "hoax" is merely an extension of Ruth Paine's testimony).

The Hoaxers (Paine, Jenner, Howlett and "Miss Reporter") have all learned their parts.
A complex choreography is performed as they move through the house asking and answering various questions, taking various measurements and picking up exhibits as they go along which are carefully marked, starting at "Ruth Paine Exhibit 270". They have to make sure that by the time they get to the curtain rods they are ready to use the all important numbers - 275 and 276.

"But why?", you may ask.
"Why do the curtain rods have to be marked 275 and 276 just because some unknown person scrawled these numbers on the ones submitted to Day?"

"...ssshhh, nobody will ever know..."

"Hold on a second", you say in a confused tone, "What's the point of this massively elaborate hoax, the specific goal of which is to mark these curtain rods 275 and 276, when there's an official document stating these rods were already submitted eight days ago? It just doesn't make any sense".

"...ssshhh, this is Tinfoil Fantasyland. Unfold the wings of your imagination and fly away..."

"But why not just throw the "TSBD rods" away immediately? Why submit them, then throw them away?"

"...fly awaaaay..."


As you might have guessed Alan, I'm not too impressed with your answer.
Here's a bit of Occam's Razor for you - the submission date is wrong.
One one hand a massively elaborate, totally pointless hoax.
On the other - a wrong submission date.

[John Iacoletti]

Dan's sarcastic strawman arguments are tedious.

Why was it called Ruth Paine exhibit 275 when she didn't have that many exhibits?  Perhaps that number was already written on the package that Ruth Paine had in her garage.  Perhaps it's just an uncanny coincidence that Howlett measured the curtain rod to be "2 feet 3 1/2 inches", or 27.5 inches.