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

[Alan Ford]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me repeat my question:

In the document Alan posted above, why is there no location listed in the fifth line?

Or am I missing something?

Lt. Day leaves a whole block of fields empty, Mr. DiEugenio.

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Try reading my posts before asking for my thoughts, Mr. Von Pein. Page 4.

This silly reply of yours on Page 37 of the thread at MacRae's forum is better.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Lt. Day leaves a whole block of fields empty, Mr. DiEugenio.

That is correct, but one has to wonder why that one?

[Alan Ford]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

This silly reply of yours on Page 37 is better.

 

~Grin~

Looking forward to your considered critique, Mr. Von Pein. But I must warn you: it will involve your getting drawn into another discussion of the dreaded document that led you to the desperate act of inventing two time-travel scenarios!

🤣

[David Von Pein]

Alan,

Your silliness about the "Exhibit 275" really meaning "27.5 inches" is quite a howler as well.

(Is the "276" supposed to really indicate "27.6 inches"?)

The amazing made-up crap from the desks of CTers never ceases to astound us all.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is correct, but one has to wonder why that one?

Can't say, but perhaps Lt. Day considered the name 'Oswald' to be enough by way of specification of the case.

My understanding of the phrase "LOCATION WHERE COMMITTED" is that it refers to scene of the crime rather than place where item of evidence was taken from?

[James DiEugenio]

Let me ask this question then:

When did Ruth Paine first mention and then produce the curtain rods?

[Alan Ford]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Well, I must admit, your silliness about the "Exhibit 275" really meaning "27.5 inches" is quite a howler.

(Is the "276" supposed to really indicate "27.6 inches" as well?)

Again: thanks for proving that you haven't read my posts on page 4 of this very thread---------a telling insight into how you approach your task as a robotic Warren Gullible propagandist. Be careful, you could some day soon be made redundant by ChatGPT.

Reminder! Your inability to explain what's on the dreaded document is a matter of record. If you want to change the record, you'll need to do something that is quite alien to you: think critically rather than gullibly. That way you might move beyond time-travel solutions----------------and give ChatGPT a run for its money! 👍

 

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Alan,

Your silliness about the "Exhibit 275" really meaning "27.5 inches" is quite a howler as well.

(Is the "276" supposed to really indicate "27.6 inches"?)

The amazing made-up crap from the desks of CTers never ceases to astound us all.

 

It is indeed a leap. But, absent an explanation for the number in the official story, we can not rule it out. I mean, does it make sense to you that they assigned the number 275 to an exhibit when there was no 274 or 273 or 272, etc? That's a bit weird, ain't it?

[David Von Pein]

20 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Your inability to explain what's on the dreaded document is a matter of record.

I did explain it. The March 15 date is simply an error. It HAS to be.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me ask this question then:

When did Ruth Paine first mention and then produce the curtain rods?

Get this, Mr. DiEugenio. We are supposed to believe that the first time any member of the 'investigating' authorities (police, FBI, etc.) actually checked the Paine garage to see whether there were curtain rods there was 23 March 1964, when the rods were 'discovered' during Mrs. Paine's on-the-record in situ deposition at her home.

The question of whether any curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage would have been one of THE most pressing questions, yet we find not a mention of this issue in any of the reports.

One thing is for sure: if it had been established in the search(es) of the garage that no curtain rods were missing, that fact would have been given headline prominence in the reports. The fact that this dog doesn't bark is telling------------and all the more telling given the submission of two curtain rods for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, eight days BEFORE two curtain rods would finally be removed on the record from the Paine garage in March '64.

It's utterly farcical.

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

I did explain it. The March 15 date is simply an error. It HAS to be.

 

 

~Grin~

So give us an alternative date.

You can't, can you, Mr. Von Pein?

[Alan Ford]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It is indeed a leap. But, absent an explanation for the number in the official story, we can not rule it out. I mean, does it make sense to you that they assigned the number 275 to an exhibit when there was no 274 or 273 or 272, etc? That's a bit weird, ain't it?

Mr. Speer, they started numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits at 270 so as not to make it too obvious that this entire in situ deposition was about one thing and one thing only: a staged 'discovery' of two curtain rods that would receive the numbers 275 and 276.

No one can offer an alternative explanation for why they chose the random number 270 to begin counting with.

2-7-5 were the magic digits.

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It is indeed a leap. But, absent an explanation for the number in the official story, we can not rule it out. I mean, does it make sense to you that they assigned the number 275 to an exhibit when there was no 274 or 273 or 272, etc? That's a bit weird, ain't it?

The odd numbering system occurred for many witness exhibits. Such as:

The "L.C. Graves Exhibits" begin with number 5003-A.

And then there's the "Hardin" exhibits, which begin with No. 5125.

And the "Harrison" exhibits start with #5027.

Plus a bunch of other oddball starting numbers for other witnesses too. (See link below.)

https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh20.htm

So Ruth Paine's exhibits being numbered 275 and 276 is not unusual IN THIS CASE at all.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

So Ruth Paine's exhibits being 275 and 276 is not unusual IN THIS CASE at all.

A curtain rod measuring 27.5 inches is received by Lt. Day, who notes that it is "marked 27.5". It's a length marking.

Eight days later, a curtain rod is "marked" 275. It's an Exhibit No.

What are the odds?

And where does numbering for the Michael Paine exhibits begin? Weirdly enough, at the number 1:

I trust those pieces of string extracted from the Paine home proved crucial to the fact-finding work of the Commission! 🤣