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

[David Von Pein]

A simple slipped digit in the March 15 date just isn't nearly good enough for a CTer, is it? Something MORE *must* enter into it, right?

And tell me again what was the reason for why the WC didn't merely deep-six the curtain rods that you (I guess) think were taken into the TSBD by LHO on 11/22 (even though Oswald himself decided to lie about this and say he took no rods into work; that's something you certainly need to work on, and without using the "All Cops Lied About What LHO Said" cop-out please), instead of transporting the rods back into Ruth's garage at some point prior to March 23rd?

Wouldn't just getting rid of the rods be a better solution, vs. the proverbial curtain rod/garage "charade"?

Please enlighten me (again) with your wisdom as to why the WC cover-uppers didn't just simply eliminate said rods?

And remember, I'm just a dumb-as-a-rock hick from the Hoosier State, so please explain it (again) very slowly. Thanks.

 

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Keep serving the l-i-e, Mr. Von Pein! 👍

And please, Alan, please keep fantasizing that the March 15 document SOMEHOW means that rods were found IN THE TSBD.....even though it proves no such thing (nor does it even go in that direction, except in the fanciful mind of an ABO CTer).

Carry on with your next fantasy please....

Edited November 8, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

A simple slipped digit in the March 15 date just isn't nearly good enough for a CTer, is it? Something MORE *must* enter into it, right?

And tell me again what was the reason for why the WC didn't merely deep-six the curtain rods that you (I guess) think were taken into the TSBD by LHO on 11/22 (even though Oswald himself decided to lie about this and say he took no rods into work; that's something you certainly need to work on, and without using the "All Cops Lied About What LHO Said" cop-out please), instead of transporting the rods back into Ruth's garage at some point prior to March 23rd?

Wouldn't just getting rid of the rods be a better solution, vs. the proverbial curtain rod/garage "charade"?

Please enlighten me (again) with your wisdom as to why the WC cover-uppers didn't just simply eliminate said rods?

And remember, I'm just a dumb-as-a-rock hick from the Hoosier State, so please explain it (again) very slowly. Thanks.

A simple slipped digit? Nope------------your efforts to change a single digit crashed into the rocks of reality!

All the questions you ask across the rest of your post I have already amply answered earlier in this thread. Do your homework, Mr. Von Pein.

[Alan Ford]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And please, Alan, please keep fantasizing that the March 15 document SOMEHOW means that rods were found IN THE TSBD.....even though it proves no such thing (nor does it even go in that direction, except in the fanciful mind of an ABO CTer).

Carry on with your next fantasy please....

This from the guy who invented time travel to explain away the document.

Take the L like a man, Mr. Von Pein. You're just boring us at this stage with your blather.

[Jean Ceulemans]

I wonder, what happened to Howlett post-JFK-investigation ? 

What caused the WC - on 3/16 - to order an investigation of the Beckley room regarding the CR's. 

Perhaps Frazier's Hearing before that ? 

Where was Howlett on the 15th ? 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

This from the guy who invented time travel to explain away the document.

Untrue. I have said multiple times that I think the March 15th date on the DPD form is simply an error. Which it so obviously is, when taking into account the totality of the facts surrounding the two curtain rods that were recovered from Ruth Paine's garage on 3/23/64.

Reclaiming History Book Excerpt.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

@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

* IMAGES deleted to save space*

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Untrue. I have said multiple times that I think the March 15th date on the DPD form is simply an error. Which it so obviously is, when taking into account the totality of the facts surrounding the two curtain rods that were recovered from Ruth Paine's garage on 3/23/64.

Reclaiming History Book Excerpt.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~Grin~

If citing Mr. Bugliosi is still the best you've got here, Mr. Von Pein, then all you're doing is waving the white flag------yet again!

Mr. Bugliosi (or whoever wrote this part of his magnum opus) calls the 3-15-64 date "an impossibility under the circumstances". What he means is an impossibility under the circumstances required by the official story.

That official story has collapsed, brought down by the form you made a fool of yourself trying to explain away:

Why, you can't even come up with a single viable alternative date.

It's nice to think that this little exchange of ours will be archived. It effectively showcases your chronically silly, shamelessly bad-faith approach to the evidence! 👍

[Tom Gram]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Untrue. I have said multiple times that I think the March 15th date on the DPD form is simply an error. Which it so obviously is, when taking into account the totality of the facts surrounding the two curtain rods that were recovered from Ruth Paine's garage on 3/23/64.

Reclaiming History Book Excerpt.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It could be an error. Are there any other DPD evidence forms with such a massive screw up on dates though, or at least something similar? 

Also, even if the March 15th date was an error, how do we explain the two different release dates, release times, and Day signatures? 

This is speculation, but is it possible the SS, WC, DPD etc. found out about the Paine curtain rods earlier, tested for Oswald’s prints as a contingency, then basically staged Paine’s garage testimony for the record even though the rods were already in DPD custody?

There are plenty of other bizarre, egregious alleged errors on documents in this case - the affidavit of Louis Feldsott comes to mind - and past a certain threshold of strangeness it doesn’t really cut it to dismiss such errors as simple mistakes, IMO. We need to explain how the errors could’ve actually happened. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 11/9/2023 at 1:55 PM, Tom Gram said:

It could be an error. Are there any other DPD evidence forms with such a massive screw up on dates though, or at least something similar? 

Also, even if the March 15th date was an error, how do we explain the two different release dates, release times, and Day signatures? 

This is speculation, but is it possible the SS, WC, DPD etc. found out about the Paine curtain rods earlier, tested for Oswald’s prints as a contingency, then basically staged Paine’s garage testimony for the record even though the rods were already in DPD custody?

There are plenty of other bizarre, egregious alleged errors on documents in this case - the affidavit of Louis Feldsott comes to mind - and past a certain threshold of strangeness it doesn’t really cut it to dismiss such errors as simple mistakes, IMO. We need to explain how the errors could’ve actually happened. 

* IMAGES deleted to save space*

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

It's indeed very hard to correct the 3/15 date without being in conflict with another given on the document.

23 nope 24 nope 25 nope ... alwas something in conflict

I don't know what it was, Ruth was evasive on the subject, doesn't mean anything but one never knows

Somewhere there has to be an explanation.

It has already been explained!

[Jean Ceulemans]

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

It has already been explained!

That does not exclude the possibility that more documents can be found!

[Alan Ford]

Just now, Jean Ceulemans said:

That does not exclude the possibility that more documents can be found!

Agreed 100%, sir!

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

It's nice to think that this little exchange of ours will be archived. It effectively showcases your chronically silly, shamelessly bad-faith approach to the evidence! 👍

I think it merely showcases the utter desperation, wishful thinking, and outright speculation that we (of course) have all been accustomed to seeing in virtually every argument put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists since the crime was committed in November of 1963.

So, thank you, Alan Ford, for being willing to showcase your massive amounts of speculation and your willingness (and eagerness) to call multiple people outright l-i-a-r-s, all based on the words "March 15" on one document (plus a copy of said document).

Another fine (and extraordinarily fun and funny) example of CTer desperation and wishful thinking and speculation in action (re: the SBT) can be found HERE.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

Mr Buell Wesley Frazier has said that he received an anonymous phone-call from a woman telling him that curtain rods were indeed found at the Depository. The evidence is that this is exactly what happened.

We must not underestimate the role that may have been played here by that old bugbear, the human factor.

If the two rods were discovered (as they surely were) by a Depository employee, then that employee might have shown it to fellow employees. They might be the kind of person who could go to the press about it if the 'investigating' authorities don't satisfy them that the matter has been properly looked into. Those 'investigators' framing Mr Oswald after the event do not have the luxury of working in a closed system-------there are real-world considerations that render the situation perilously dynamic.

So what did they do? The sensible thing. They generate paperwork that can be furnished to the person who found the rods at the Depository----------paperwork that 'shows' that the matter has been thoroughly looked into and there is nothing to see.

But this solution doesn't stick. More is needed by way of insurance against the person who found the rods causing a stink. They cannot have a person going around talking of having found two curtain rods with '27.5' marked on them. There is too much at stake.

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.-------------"This person is inventing a story to make themselves feel important... We have regrettably seen a lot of this sort of thing in this case... We hear of bogus claims every day... This person has clearly taken the number 275 from the Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos and misunderstood it as actual markings on the curtain rods." Clever rascals!