Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

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?

 

Do you think the length of the first curtain rod is 27.5 inches but the second is 276 inches long?  There is clearly no decimal point in 275 and there is none in 276 which you completely ignore.     HA HA HA.  Seek help. 

[Alan Ford]

Do you think the length of the first curtain rod is 27.5 inches but the second is 276 inches long?

Nope------but I do think you need to seek help with your reading skills! 

There is clearly no decimal point in 275

 

and there is none in 276 which you completely ignore.

 

Not alone can Mr. Smith not read, he embarrasses himself further by NOT offering an explanation why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits!

He also wants us to think it's a pure freaky coincidence that----------------

a) the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
b) Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.

Like I say: 

[Richard Smith]

Nope------but I do think you need to seek help with your reading skills! 

 

 

Not alone can Mr. Smith not read, he embarrasses himself further by NOT offering an explanation why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits!

He also wants us to think it's a pure freaky coincidence that----------------

a) the unextended curtain rods taken from Ms Paine's garage were measured on the spot as 27.5 inches long.
b) Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches.

Like I say: 

The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276."  Again "marked".   "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.   You wouldn't measure an object and then reference its length as being "marked" by the length.  HA HA HA.  Good grief.  Do you have no shame?

[Alan Ford]

The handwritten notation clearly states that the curtain rods are "marked 275 + 276."  Again "marked".   "Marked" is the method to identify an object (i.e. as by its exhibit number 275 and 276). How do we know this is true beyond any doubt in this case? THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE WC EXHIBIT NUMBERS for the curtain rods taken from Paine's garage.

 

In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:

1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

Oh, how the lowly have fallen!

 

[Richard Smith]

In fairness to you, Mr. Smith, you do raise two important questions:

1. Why can't Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Why can't Mr. Smith explain away that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

Oh, how the lowly have fallen!

 

Unreal.  Let's go over this very slowly.

1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276.  Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.
3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.
4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.
5)  The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)
6)  Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?


Lastly, there is an enormous logic fallacy to this conspiracy fantasy.  It would have us believe that four months after successfully framing Oswald for the crime including debunking his story to Frazier that he carried curtain rods that morning (a story that Oswald himself denied he told Frazier) and instead had his rifle in the bag, that the authorities would on their own volition document and bring to light those very same curtain rods that they are tried so hard to suppress.  To check for Oswald's prints!  Wow.  You should be ashamed.

[Alan Ford]

Unreal.  Let's go over this very slowly.

1) The handwritten notation indicates that the curtain rods are "marked" 275 and 276.  Again "marked."
2) The term "marked" in the context of an item of evidence is a number used for identification purposes.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the object.

~Grin~

If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!

3) The WC exhibit numbers for two curtain rods taken from Paine's garage are also 275 and 276.

Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!

4) There are no decimals in the notation to 275 or 276.

 

The numbers 275 and 276 are not followed by any unit of length (e.g. inches, centimeters, feet etc)

Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! 

6)  Why would two curtain rods taken for the same source have different lengths?

And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!

 

Let's have another go, shall we?

1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?

 

[Richard Smith]

~Grin~

If someone has marked 27.5 on two curtain rods that are 27.5 inches in length, then Mr. Smith wants you to believe the marking has nothing to do with the length!

Yes, quite------------those two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage 8 days after the two curtain rods referred to on the form were submitted!

 



Yes, someone holding the curtain rods might make the mistake they are 27.5 feet in length! 

And he again blissfully misreads what I actually wrote!

 

Let's have another go, shall we?

1. Can Mr. Smith explain why the number 270 was chosen to start marking the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

2. Can Mr. Smith explain away the incredible coincidence that 27.5 is the EXACT SAME as the length of the curtain rods?

3. Why does Mr. Smith keep running away from these questions?

 

What are you babbling about here?   There is no 27.5 on that document.  None.  And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276.  Not 27.5 or even 27.6.  It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA.  There is no unit of length indicated on this document.  It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home.   If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.

[Alan Ford]

What are you babbling about here?   There is no 27.5 on that document.  None.  And, of course, the second curtain rod is "marked" 276.  Not 27.5 or even 27.6.  It would not be the EXACT SAME length. HA HA HA.  There is no unit of length indicated on this document.  It clearly references the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the two curtain rods taken from the Paine home.   If there is an "incredible coincidence" it would be that in your insane fantasy.

~Grin~

And what do you think your conclusion might be, Mr. Smith, if you weren't blind and mentally challenged?