Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Already explained, Mr Smith---------those were the exact length markings

Oh but there is for '27.5'. The ink for '27.6' may simply not have transferred if Lt. Day was writing in haste

Unreal.  There are clearly no such decimal points.  None.  Anyone can look at the document and see that.  Your fictional explanation for that is a great source of amusement, however (i.e. Day was writing in haste - HA HA HA).  Comedy gold.  And to suggest that it is just a remarkable coincidence the "length" of these curtain rods coincides exactly to the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods defies response.  Again, though, if you believe this document proves a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, please forward this information to the NY Times for their assessment instead of posting it here over and over again.  Get back to us with their response. 

[Alan Ford]

And to suggest that it is just a remarkable coincidence the "length" of these curtain rods coincides exactly to the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods defies response.

I fully agree, Mr Smith----------well said, sir! 

[Richard Smith]

I fully agree, Mr Smith----------well said, sir! 

LOL.  That's because you don't understand.  It is humorous, though, that you attribute no decimal points to Day being in haste in writing the document.  Of course, it is a completely baseless claim to suggest he was in "haste", but you apparently don't entertain the possibility of his getting the date wrong because he was in this same "haste." 

When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?

[Alan Ford]

LOL.  That's because you don't understand.  It is humorous, though, that you attribute no decimal points to Day being in haste in writing the document.  Of course, it is a completely baseless claim to suggest he was in "haste", but you apparently don't entertain the possibility of his getting the date wrong because he was in this same "haste."

When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?

~Grin~

'The remarkable coincidence between the length of these curtain rods and the WC exhibit number for the curtain rods really triggers me, as does the fact that after 8 months I still have no answer to Ford's straightforward question about why the WC chose the number 270 to begin their Paine home exhibits'

 

[John Iacoletti]

When will you be contacting the NY Times with this evidence of a conspiracy?

Since when does a Trump-bot care what the New York Times thinks?

[Jerry Freeman]

Why was this curtain rod sphere of interest ever developed in the 1st place?
If they were actually discovered in the TSBD ...why not just trash them?
                                      Out of sight...out of mind
                                                           

[Alan Ford]

Why was this curtain rod sphere of interest ever developed in the 1st place?
If they were actually discovered in the TSBD ...why not just trash them?
                                      Out of sight...out of mind
                                                           

If they were discovered (as they surely were) by a Depository employee, then this option is risky. The employee might have shown it to fellow employees. They might be the kind of person who could go to the press about it if the 'investigating' authorities don't satisfy them that the matter has been properly looked into. Those 'investigators' framing Mr Oswald after the event do not have the luxury of working in a closed system-------there are real-world considerations that render the situation dynamic.

So what did they do? The sensible thing. They generated paperwork that could be shown to the person who found the rods at the Depository----------paperwork that 'showed' that the matter had been thoroughly looked into and there was nothing to see.

But more was needed by way of insurance against the person who found the rods causing a stink. And so a fiendish little plan was hatched to disappear the curtain rods found at the Depository into two curtain rods taken on-the-record from the Paine garage by the WC. Central to this little scam was the use of the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6. The Depository employee(s) had seen those digits on the curtain rods (precise length markings, possibly scribbled: 27.5 inches, 27.6 inches), and could cite them if they started kicking up a stink; what better way to discredit them in advance by using those digits as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos.-------------"This person is inventing a story to make themselves feel important... They have gotten the numbers 275 and 276 from the Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos and misunderstood them as actual markings on the curtain rods. Unfortunately this case has attracted a lot of bogus claims." Quite clever really!

Mr Buell Wesley Frazier says he received an anonymous phone-call from a woman telling him that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository. The evidence is that this is exactly what happened.

[Alan Ford]

So we have two different release dates on two different versions of the form:
DATE A: 3/24/64
DATE B: 3/26/64

This:

1. At some point after the assassination, a pair of white enamel curtain rods, each with the length marking 27.5 (=inches) on it, are discovered by an employee inside the Depository

2. The employee notifies the authorities about them and hands them over

3. On 15 March '64 these two rods are submitted to Lt. Day's Crime Scene Search Section, where they are to be tested for Mr. Oswald's prints

4. The description, in red pen, is written as follows: "2 curtain rods - white enamel (4 pcs) marked 27.5":



Note not only the decimal point, but the fact that the 5 is raised

5. These two curtain rods are tested for Mr. Oswald's prints, and then Lt. Day releases them back to Agent Howlett at 7:50am on 24 March. He goes back to the witness with a copy of the submission/release form 'proving' that the matter has been looked into and resolved: the rods were not left by Mr. Oswald

6. Meanwhile, however, a plan has been in progress to turn these two rods into Ruth Paine Exhibits, with the assigned numbers 275 & 276. Lt. Day simply adds (at a noticeable distance away from the "27.5") "& 276" (no decimal point this time) using the same red pen:



Tricky to get rid of the decimal point in 27.5, but they can at least make sure that the black-and-white copy version given to the WC is clean of it:



**

Looking forward to hearing the doubters offer an alternative explanation as to why the following number system was used:



Where, pray, do you think the number 270 came from as the number at which to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?