BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Richard Smith]

It has been staring us in the face, friends 

A SOLUTION!

1. There were 4 curtain rods in Mrs Paine's garage originally. (Cf. Mr Paine's testimony!)
2. Mr Oswald helped himself to 2 on 11/22.
3. The Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators knew perfectly well upon their first inspection of the garage that 2 rods were missing, but played it down.
4. Later, the 2 missing curtain rods turned up--------in the Depository.
5. These were submitted for fingerprinting on the morning of March 15, and not released until the morning of March 24.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 remaining rods were removed from Mrs Paine's garage on the evening of March 23.
7. A second, false version of the Crime Scene Search Section form was created for the record, the release date amended to March 26 to 'give time' to Lieutenant Day to fingerprint 'them'.
8. But Day screwed up---he didn't think to change the March 15 date at the top.

==========> The 2 rods removed by Agent Howlett from the Paine garage on 23 March were never fingerprinted (a pointless exercise, in any case!)
==========> The 2 rods found in the Depository were never seen again after Agent Howlett received them back from Lieutenant Day (which he did first thing---7:50 a.m.!---the morning after his on-the-record removal of the other 2 rods from the garage)
==========> By contriving to name the 2 rods removed from Mrs Paine's garage 'Exhibits 275 & 276', the WC created the impression that these were the same rods as those 'marked 275 & 276' in the DPD records.

 

Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game. 

[Alan Ford]

Again, if the authorities recovered two curtain rods from the TSBD that were taken there by Oswald, why would they ever submit these for prints or account for them in any way if the intent was to cover up their discovery?  Your scenario has someone (presumably the DPD) finding the curtain rods which would support Oswald's story to Frazier, suppressing them because they give validity to Oswald's account, BUT then months later after Oswald's death bringing them to light to check them for prints!  Can't you see how ludicrous that scenario is?  Why in the world would the authorities who are trying to cover up these curtain rods suddenly submit them for prints after they have successfully covered up their discovery?  It's laughable.   And finding prints on the rods would have assisted Oswald.  So why check them if the purpose is to frame Oswald and document that in a form?  Why not just throw them out?  Instead there is a pointless shell game.

 

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?

[Richard Smith]

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

Perhaps you need more time to study the documents, and their dates, thoroughly?

We look forward to seeing your explanation of these in due course!   

In the meantime... anyone else want to have a more substantive shot at this problem?

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

[Walt Cakebread]

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?

This is a valid question....   I've asked myself that same question.    And the answer is; Perhaps it's a case of someone being out of the loop ( Someone didn't get the memo)

The person who found the curtain rods ( hidden under the loading dock?) at the TSBD was unaware that they didn't want to verify that the convicted and executed, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald, had in fact carried curtain rods and not a carcano in a paper sack that morning.   He who found the curtain rods needed to be duped into believing that the curtain rods that he had discovered had no connection with Lee Oswald or the murder of JFK.   

P.S.   Howlett was a leading member of the cover up team in Dallas......

[Alan Ford]

I'm asking you a simple, straightforward question.  Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?  If they are trying to suppress the discovery of any curtain rods found at the TSBD, all they have to do is remain silent about their discovery.  They don't check them for prints which could only bolster Oswald's story.  Can you articulate a reasonable answer or not?  If not, what does that tell you about your fantasy (i.e. it makes no internal sense).

 

Mr Smith, you're like a worm wriggling on a hook and squealing 'What?! Ludicrous to think someone could have put a hook here!! This is NOT happening!!!'

I'm afraid it is happening, and your efforts to divert from the hard evidence are fooling nobody. You simply cannot explain what that hard evidence tells us:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Not a theory, not a speculation, not a claim: a documented fact.

2 + 2 = 4, Mr Smith, however you spin it! 

Now! Can anyone else from the Nutter stable do better than Mr Smith?

[John Iacoletti]

Your post utterly fails to address the points I have laid out, Mr Smith!

"Richard" has no interest in altered documents, changed dates, or evidence that is submitted prior to it being "discovered".

All he is interested in is asking why his strawman vast conspiracy would do such a thing.

[Richard Smith]

Mr Smith, you're like a worm wriggling on a hook and squealing 'What?! Ludicrous to think someone could have put a hook here!! This is NOT happening!!!'

I'm afraid it is happening, and your efforts to divert from the hard evidence are fooling nobody. You simply cannot explain what that hard evidence tells us:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Not a theory, not a speculation, not a claim: a documented fact.

2 + 2 = 4, Mr Smith, however you spin it! 

Now! Can anyone else from the Nutter stable do better than Mr Smith?

Talk about diverting!  I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  You have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer the most obvious question that your fantasy raises.  Even Walt gave it a crack.  Again, why would your conspirators who had successfully suppressed the discovery of any curtain rods at the TSBD, suddenly bring them to light months after the fact to check them for Oswald's prints and then put them back in Paine's garage?  There is no need for your conspirators to account for any curtain rods because there was no record of their existence.  That would have been the whole point of suppressing them in the first place.  LOL.  Thus, you have an obvious and internal inconsistency in your fantasy scenario which you can't apparently reconcile.  Those who are going to great pains to suppress the curtain rods are suddenly and inexplicably the same ones voluntarily bringing them to light.  And conveniently filling out a form to document it.  Wow. 

[Richard Smith]

Why would the authorities who are trying to suppress the discovery of the curtain rods in your fantasy be the very same folks who bring them to light and check them for prints months later?

This is a valid question....   I've asked myself that same question.    And the answer is; Perhaps it's a case of someone being out of the loop ( Someone didn't get the memo)

The person who found the curtain rods ( hidden under the loading dock?) at the TSBD was unaware that they didn't want to verify that the convicted and executed, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald, had in fact carried curtain rods and not a carcano in a paper sack that morning.   He who found the curtain rods needed to be duped into believing that the curtain rods that he had discovered had no connection with Lee Oswald or the murder of JFK.   

P.S.   Howlett was a leading member of the cover up team in Dallas......

I give you credit for at least trying but this is not very convincing.  Of all people not to get the memo on covering up the discovery of curtain rods, you single out Howlett who you then claim is the "leading member of the cover up team in Dallas."  He is the one who submits the request in question.  As a result, you appear to be suggesting that head of the cover up didn't understand there was a cover up.  That is difficult to reconcile.

How exactly would the person who found the curtain rods at the TSBD be duped by a plan which places the curtain rods back in the Paine garage?  If a person found them at the TSBD (i.e. saw them with their own eyes at the TSBD), the WC indicating that they were found in the Paine's garage would highlight a falsehood not dupe anyone who otherwise knew they were found at the TSBD.  To do what you have suggested would have entailed acknowledging the discovery of curtain rods at the TSBD but then saying that because there were none of Oswald's prints on them that these could not be linked to him or perhaps suggest that Oswald could have stuck a couple of curtain rods in the same bag as his rifle.  The WC does not do this but places the curtain rods in the Paine garage from the time of the assassination.