Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

And off to Tinfoil Fantasyland we go...

~Grin~

You always resort to such OTT rhetoric, Mr O'Meara, when you know you're losing the argument. You sound rattled:)

Ruth Paine's house, 3/23/64

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

So the two rods taken from Ruth Paine's house are marked Ruth Paine exhibits 275 and 276
The two curtain rods on the dubious DPD report are marked 275 and 276
Common sense would tell us that these are one and the same rods.
But not in Tinfoil Fantasyland.

Common sense would tell us 3/15/64 comes BEFORE 3/23/64 and 3/24/64 comes AFTER 3/23/64. But not in WC Apologist Land

In this other realm two rods are submitted to Day by Agent Howlett. How they came into Agent Howlett's possession cannot be explained.

Sure it can--------------a Depository employee brought them to his attention

(Back in the real world Howlett takes charge of them at Ruth Paine's house and delivers them to Day)
Someone has scribbled the numbers 275 and 276 on the rods for no known reason, this cannot be explained. (Back in the real world they are "marked" for identification. That's why Day bothers to mention it.)
Rather than just ignore these random numbers or erase them, a massively elaborate hoax is put in motion, the reason for which cannot be explained.

Sure it can: the Depository employee saw and remembers the '275' and '276' markings on the rods, so this fact needs to be neutralized

(Back in the real world the "hoax" is merely an extension of Ruth Paine's testimony).

The Hoaxers (Paine, Jenner, Howlett and "Miss Reporter") have all learned their parts.
A complex choreography is performed as they move through the house asking and answering various questions, taking various measurements and picking up exhibits as they go along which are carefully marked, starting at "Ruth Paine Exhibit 270". They have to make sure that by the time they get to the curtain rods they are ready to use the all important numbers - 275 and 276.

Correct! 

If you disagree, perhaps you will be so kind as to offer your explanation why the random number 270 was chosen as a starting point? Because right now it sounds like you ain't got one

"But why?", you may ask.
"Why do the curtain rods have to be marked 275 and 276 just because some unknown person scrawled these numbers on the ones submitted to Day?"

Asked and answered: the Depository employee who found the rods

"...ssshhh, nobody will ever know..."

"Hold on a second", you say in a confused tone, "What's the point of this massively elaborate hoax, the point of which is to mark these curtain rods 275 and 276, when there's an official document stating these rods were already submitted eight days ago? It just doesn't make any sense".

It makes perfect sense: documentary evidence needed to be shown the Depository employee that the matter had been looked into thoroughly. Otherwise there was a risk this witness would go public and undermine a key plank of the case against Mr Oswald

"...ssshhh, this is Tinfoil Fantasyland. Unfold the wings of your imagination and fly away..."

"But why not just throw the "TSBD rods" away immediately? Why submit them, then throw them away?"

Again....... the Depository employee

"...fly awaaaay..."

You're trying too hard, Mr O'Meara!

As you might have guessed Alan, I'm not too impressed with your answer.
Here's a bit of Occam's Razor for you - the submission date is wrong.
One one hand a massively elaborate, totally pointless hoax.
On the other - a wrong submission date.

Ah, so your grand solution is the same as your fellow WC Apologist Mr Richard Smith's:

---------------------they got the submission date wrong
---------------------they got the release date wrong

And that's before we even get to the question: Why the heck would anyone feel the need to test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints two curtain rods found in the Paine garage? What exactly would a positive result establish?

 

[Alan Ford]

Dan's sarcastic strawman arguments are tedious.

But entertaining in their desperate ineptitude!

Why was it called Ruth Paine exhibit 275 when she didn't have that many exhibits?  Perhaps that number was already written on the package that Ruth Paine had in her garage.  Perhaps it's just an uncanny coincidence that Howlett measured the curtain rod to be "2 feet 3 1/2 inches", or 27.5 inches.

Total fluke!

Another total fluke: Mr Frazier's estimate of the length of the package is one half of one inch off the length of the curtain rod

[John Iacoletti]

But entertaining in their desperate ineptitude!

Total fluke!

Another total fluke: Mr Frazier's estimate of the length of the package is one half of one inch off the length of the curtain rod

Obviously a complete fluke because everybody knows that there was a 40-inch Mannlicher Carcano rifle in that package.

 

[Alan Ford]

A curtain rods fingerprint card from Lt Day. Note the date--------------------

[Alan Ford]

On November 22 and 23, 1963, the Paine garage was, as one would expect, very thoroughly searched.............



As one would most certainly NOT expect, given the centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case, not a single report anywhere mentions anything about curtain rods in that garage. The idea that no one thought of checking to see whether curtain rods were there is obviously quite ludicrous.

If Mr Oswald had brought no curtain rods to the Depository the morning of the assassination, the following would have happened:

ALL curtain rods in the garage before the assassination would have still been in the garage and would have been immediately found and recorded as having been found in the garage. Ms Paine would have been put on the record immediately as confirming that no curtain rods were missing. The world would have been told all about this crucial development in the Oswald-Did-It case.

Yet somehow none of this happened. Instead we get complete radio silence about curtain rods in the garage until March '64, when two curtain rods are extracted from the Paine garage----------EIGHT DAYS AFTER two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section for testing for Mr Oswald's prints.

Go figure!

 

[Dan O'meara]

A curtain rods fingerprint card from Lt Day. Note the date--------------------

The rods were tested for prints the day after they were released to Howlett?

[Richard Smith]

On November 22 and 23, 1963, the Paine garage was, as one would expect, very thoroughly searched.............



As one would most certainly NOT expect, given the centrality of curtain rods to the Oswald case, not a single report anywhere mentions anything about curtain rods in that garage.

If Mr Oswald had brought no curtain rods to the Depository the morning of the assassination, the following would have happened:

ALL curtain rods in the garage before the assassination would have still been in the garage and would have been immediately found and recorded as having been found in the garage. Ms Paine would have been put on the record immediately as confirming that no curtain rods were missing. The world would have been told all about this crucial development in the Oswald-Did-It case.

Instead we get 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints on 3/15/64, and then two curtain rods extracted from the Paine garage on 3/23/64.

Go figure!

 

Huh. Why would any curtain rods in the Paine garage been recorded at that point?  If they were noticed in the garage AFTER the assassination obviously they were in not in the bag taken by Oswald to the TSBD.  Months later in an exercise of due diligence once the curtain rod story was known the investigators took a closer look at them.  You are really grasping at fantasy straws.

[Alan Ford]

The rods were tested for prints the day after they were released to Howlett?

No--------two rods were tested for prints the day after two rods were released to Agent Howlett.

Now, Mr O'Meara! You have claimed that the straightforward solution to this document-----------



------------is that the submission date is simply an error.

OK. What do you think the correct submission date might have been?