A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

And so a fiendish little plan is hatched to disappear the curtain rods found at the Depository into two curtain rods taken on-the-record from the Paine garage by the WC. Central to this little scam is the use of the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6. What better way to discredit in advance the mouthy TSBD discoverer of the rods than to neutralize the danger posed by the digits 2-7-5- by turning them into a Ruth Paine Exhibit No.

As I said in my last post. CTers almost always exhibit....

"...utter desperation, wishful thinking, and outright speculation..."

Alan Ford just demonstrated all three of those traits in his last post.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

FYI / FWIW....

Here are some rarely-seen DPD photos showing the prints that were lifted off of the two curtain rods recovered from Ruth Paine's garage (Exhibits 275 and 276). Only one of the prints was deemed "legible" by Lt. J.C. Day....

https://texashistory.unt.edu / Prints On Exhibit No. 275

https://texashistory.unt.edu / Prints On Exhibit No. 276

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And here's another rare Dallas Police Department image concerning the curtain rods, this one featuring a date --- March 25, 1964 --- which is a date that is perfectly consistent with the rods having been removed from Ruth Paine's garage on the night of March 23rd....

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49815/?q=curtain rods

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And here's another rare Dallas Police Department image concerning the curtain rods, this one featuring a date --- March 25, 1964 --- which is a date that is perfectly consistent with the rods having been removed from Ruth Paine's garage on March 23rd....

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49815/?q=curtain rods

Earth to David. As pointed out on my website, the 3-25 date on these images is a big problem. The DPD form for the rods says they received them on 3-15 and released them on 3-24. So how could they be taking photos of them on 3-25? Simple solution: it's a different set of rods. Lone-nutter solution: the 3-15 date was wrong and the 3-24 date was wrong and there is peace in Gaza and mommy's little baby loves shortnin' bread. 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@Pat Speer Just a small remark, from your website :  "Nor is there a report or testimony explaining how and when the curtain rods identified as Paine Exhibits 275 and 276 were initially photographed, and how this photograph ended up published by the Commission."

See letter and addendum  attached, it was ordered that a number of Exhibits needed to be photographed (the full list was some 3 pages), this included the CR

 

I mention this document on my website. I take from it that the FBI has photos of 2 curtain rods, and is about to make copies of the photos. So I think my point is valid. When did they acquire the photos, and from whom? 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Earth to David. As pointed out on my website, the 3-25 date on these images is a big problem. The DPD form for the rods says they received them on 3-15 and released them on 3-24. So how could they be taking photos of them on 3-25? Simple solution: it's a different set of rods.

The March 25th date shown in the photo that appears in my last post is consistent with what appears in CE1952, with that version of the CSSS form saying the rods were released to Howlett on March 26.

Yes, there's a SECOND copy of the form which says March 24 for the release date, which I can't fully explain. Nor can you. It's one of those "unanswerable" anomalies (unless I can locate more documents in the future that can explain why there are separate copies of the same form featuring different dates).

But it's still quite clear that BOTH forms (the one that says March 24 and the one that says March 26) are referring to the exhibits numbered 275 and 276, which were, of course, the two rods taken from Ruth's house on 3/23.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I mention this document on my website. I take from it that the FBI has photos of 2 curtain rods, and is about to make copies of the photos. So I think my point is valid. When did they acquire the photos, and from whom? 

I see, but I read the document a little different, as I read it they made arrangements to make photos of the exhibits that had come into possession. 

Rovkotsky advised Jevons she had exhibits that needed to be photographed.  Cunningham took custody of those items on the list to be photographed.   In the process extra copies of the photos will be made (like for items of wich they already had photo's, a running process, but the ones on the list were not photographed yet).  Those items on the list were the fysical items )

They had the fysical items, but no photo's yet, that's why Cunningham had to take custody of all these items in the list

Not ?

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

The March 25th date shown in the photo that appears in my last post is consistent with what appears in CE1952, with that version of the CSSS form saying the rods were released to Howlett on March 26.

Yes, there's a SECOND copy of the form which says March 24 for the release date, which I can't fully explain. Nor can you. It's one of those "unanswerable" anomalies (unless I can locate more documents that can explain why there are separate copies of the same form featuring different dates).

But it's still quite clear that BOTH forms (the one that says March 24 and the one that says March 26) are referring to the exhibits numbered 275 and 276, which were, of course, the two rods taken from Ruth's house on 3/23.

 

It's not unanswerable. You just don't like the answer. 

[David Von Pein]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not unanswerable. You just don't like the answer. 

It's unanswerable (as of this date on 11/9/2023) unless I choose to engage in what I would consider to be wholly unwarranted (and, in fact, just plain silly) speculation regarding the March 15 / March 24 / March 26 dates.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I see, but I read the document a little different, as I read it they made arrangements to make photos of the exhibits that had come into possession. 

Rovkotsky advised Jevons she had exhibits that needed to be photographed.  Cunningham took custody of those items on the list to be photographed.   In the process extra copies of the photos will be made (like for items of wich they already had photo's, a running process, but the ones on the list were not photographed yet).  Those items on the list were the fysical items )

They had the fysical items, but no photo's yet, that's why Cunningham had to take custody of all these items in the list

Not ?

That would make sense, but I'm thrown by the paragraph in which it says she wants the exhibits copied. If they were talking about the physical exhibits it would say she wanted them photographed, not copied. "Copied" implies making copies of an image, to my way of thinking. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's unanswerable unless I choose to engage in what I would consider to be wholly unwarranted (and, in fact, just plain silly) speculation regarding the "March 24/26" dates.

 

So you agree people lie and conspiracies exist, but refuse to engage in speculation about such things. Got it.

[David Von Pein]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So you agree people lie and conspiracies exist, but refuse to engage in speculation about such things. Got it.

Correct.

I prefer not to imitate Johnnie Cochran.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:22 PM, Pat Speer said:

That would make sense, but I'm thrown by the paragraph in which it says she wants the exhibits copied. If they were talking about the physical exhibits it would say she wanted them photographed, not copied. "Copied" implies making copies of an image, to my way of thinking. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Marcus Fuller]

How do two police officers fill out/sign a form on the 23rd March and manage to put down the date as the 15th? Presumably it wasn't the only piece of paperwork they had to fill out that day. Did watches not have a date function on them in 1964? No calendars on the wall?

And not a single person who handled the paperwork afterwards noticed the wrong date? 

The excuse that they put down the wrong date seems like a leap of faith even a seasoned base jumper would want to take.

[Jean Ceulemans]

And another question, the Curtain Rod story by W.B. Frazier was known from day 1, LHO denied it, so why would they (DPD / FBI / SS) wait almost 4 months to check it out (at the Paine's and the Beckley-room) ?  

Unless they didn't wait that long ?

Well, I don't know, but, even - and if only - out of curiosity, I'd like to find out.