Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Bill Chapman]

Indeed. That's what happens when insecure little men with an inferiority complex are desperately trying to prove and justify themselves. Like a hush puppy barking to a bull dog....

Your obsession with me remains duly noted.

[Bill Chapman]

Who the f*ck do you think you are to tell me what to do?

If you had any common decency you could have contacted me by PM instead of publicly trying to police the forum because of something you don't like. I am very much aware about what is going on with Chapman. Do you really believe for one second that low life Chapman will desist disrupting discussions on this forum? Of course not, he will just try to do it in another way.

Stop whining.

[Bill Chapman]

it's not all a loss, because if you want me to go first it implies that you would go second, which in turn means of course that you agree and confirm that you're indeed whining? It ain't much but it's a start.

 I doubt that our little Chappie will understand your logic Martin.....  But you nailed him.

More a case of you two jokers inadvertently gobsmacking yourselves while trying to 'nail' me with what wind up as (verbal) boomerangs. Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, children.

[Alan Ford]

There is a massive flaw in your argument. How in the world could there have been two curtain rods at the TSBD that were already marked 275 and 276? Who marked them, when were they marked and why?

My proposed answer to these very questions is already stated quite explicitly in my previous post (Reply #461).

If you have a better explanation as to why the first Ruth Paine Exhibit was numbered 270, I'm all ears

[Bill Chapman]

But you are, right?   

If you say so.

[Bill Chapman]

I suggest a new Thread for the Off-Topic section to be titled 'Weidmann vs Chapman: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, Mr Weidmann, you would realize how much you delight Mr Chapman every time you take his bait. Diverting serious discussions is the only reason he's here, and you fall for it, every time. It's pathetic.

As you'll find when you read Weidmann's response to your post, Mr Always Logged In is a hot-head  who flies off the handle at the drop of a Stetson. He eventually blows himself up good. Blows himself up real good.

[Martin Weidmann]

My proposed answer to these very questions is already stated quite explicitly in my previous post (Reply #461).

If you have a better explanation as to why the first Ruth Paine Exhibit was numbered 270, I'm all ears

You claim to want serious discussion but when I ask you some questions you refer back to the exact post which made me ask the questions in the first place.

You can not explain why curtain rods, allegedly found at the TSBD, were already marked 275 and 276 nor do you say who marked them, when they were marked and why.

You claim a TSBD employee found those rods, yet when asked you do not provide his name

I have no idea why the Ruth Paine evidence numbers started with 270 and why it matters. You can speculate as much as you like but it will not get you anywhere.

I'm truly trying to understand what it is you are actually saying. Clearly the DPD document of 15 March 1964 demonstrates a discrepancy with Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964. Obviously, there is no way that Howlett could take the curtain rods from the shelf in the garage during the testimony, because the DPD document shows they were in DPD custody until at least the next day.

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Is your claim that those curtain rods were indeed removed from Ruth Paine's garage and submitted for testing on 15 March 1964? Or are you claiming that those curtain rods were not removed from Ruth Paine's garage at all, but instead were found at the TSBD with the evidence numbers somehow already attached to them?

[Alan Ford]

They needed to do this because two curtain rods marked 275 & 276 (= precise length markings stamped on the rods by the manufacturer) had been discovered in the Depository and, on 15 March, submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. The Depository employee who found the rods will have noted the numbers 275 and 276 marked on them, and could well go public about it at some point down the line. Having two different curtain rods----------formally taken from the Paine garage---------'marked' as exhibits 275 & 276 gave the 'investigating' authorities insurance against this eventuality: 'No, those are actually the exhibit numbers, this person is obviously fabricating a story based on information gleaned from the Warren Commission report.'

Bumped for Mr Weidmann in response to his accusation: "You can not explain why curtain rods, allegedly found at the TSBD, were already marked 275 and 276 nor do you say who marked them, when they were marked and why."