Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.
Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!
Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.
• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!
JohnM
Ok, so the rip off claim was another BS claim we can add to your already towering pile of BS claims.
Back to the proposed abundance of mistakes by Day, approved by Howlett;
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?This is straight up nonsense. Howlett would have submitted the rods to the person in charge of the evidence room that particular day, especially if it was a rush job. The submission date would have read 3-23-64.
