Does anyone believe Oswald's curtain rod story?
bigdog
paper package Oswald had laid on the back seat of Frazier's car. Does
any CT actually believe he was telling the truth.
That story raises a number of questions. The first one which I haven't
seen discussed much was why would he make a special trip to Irving on
a Thursday night just to pick up the curtain rods. If he had followed
his normal routine of returning to Irving on Friday afternoon, why
would he need to bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.
He wasn't going to return to the N. Beckley residence anyway so he
would have just had to leave the curtain rods in the TSBD over the
weekend. Why not just save the special trip and bring the curtain rods
in on Monday morning.
Question #2. Why would Oswald have gone to the trouble of building
such an elaborate bag just to hold a few curtain rods. He could have
carried the curtain rods in without a package. He could have bundled
them with a few pieces of string, some tape, or even rubber bands. If
he wanted them covered, he could have used a few sheets of newspaper.
Instead he makes a bag a very elaborate bag that problem took him
quite a while to cut to length and tape together.
Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
rods were found in the TSBD. An empty bag was found but no curtain
rods. What else could have been in that bag. I'm sorry. Silly
question.
Question #4. Why did Oswald deny to the police he brought curtain rods
into the building. Did he think that would be incriminating. Instead
he denied bringing anything into the building.
If these questions are too much for even the most dedicated CT to
answer and instead you believe he made up the story about the curtain
rods, then why do you think he lied to Frazier. If the bag didn't
contain curtain rods, what do you think it contained and why weren't
those contents ever found.
It seems to me, whether the CTs believe Oswald's curtain rod story or
not, it leaves them with a lot of explaining to do. LNs don't have
that problem. We only have to believe that two witnesses incorrectly
guessed the length of the bag Oswald brought with him on Friday. I
have no problem with that explaination.
Jmoor...@aol.com
> Oswald told Buell Wesley Frazier there were curtain rods in the brown
> paper package Oswald had laid on the back seat of Frazier's car. Does
> any CT actually believe he was telling the truth.
Yes I do.
> That story raises a number of questions. The first one which I haven't
> seen discussed much was why would he make a special trip to Irving on
> a Thursday night just to pick up the curtain rods. If he had followed
> his normal routine of returning to Irving on Friday afternoon, why
> would he need to bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.
> He wasn't going to return to the N. Beckley residence anyway so he
> would have just had to leave the curtain rods in the TSBD over the
> weekend. Why not just save the special trip and bring the curtain rods
> in on Monday morning.
You assume (if he had followed his normal routine) that he was
planning on returning to Irving Friday night. But if he had no plans
to return that weekend, it would make perfect sense for him to take
the curtain rods with him when he left.
>
> Question #2. Why would Oswald have gone to the trouble of building
> such an elaborate bag just to hold a few curtain rods. He could have
> carried the curtain rods in without a package. He could have bundled
> them with a few pieces of string, some tape, or even rubber bands. If
> he wanted them covered, he could have used a few sheets of newspaper.
> Instead he makes a bag a very elaborate bag that problem took him
> quite a while to cut to length and tape together.
Again, you're assuming that Oswald made the bag. One fingerprint and a
palm print was found on the bag. I'm still waiting for you to explain
how Oswald could have made that bag using only one finger.
> Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
> rods were found in the TSBD. An empty bag was found but no curtain
> rods. What else could have been in that bag. I'm sorry. Silly
> question.
Again, your assuming that because an empty bag was found, it HAD to
have contained curtain rods and nothing else. You're also assuming
that because the police said there was no curtain rods, there were no
curtain rods.
> Question #4. Why did Oswald deny to the police he brought curtain rods
> into the building. Did he think that would be incriminating. Instead
> he denied bringing anything into the building.
Again, your naivete is getting the better of you. Because the police
said Oswald said it, then Oswald said it. And yet if Oswald was as
guilty as they would have us believe it would have behooved the DPD to
tape what he said.
> If these questions are too much for even the most dedicated CT to
> answer and instead you believe he made up the story about the curtain
> rods, then why do you think he lied to Frazier. If the bag didn't
> contain curtain rods, what do you think it contained and why weren't
> those contents ever found.
>
> It seems to me, whether the CTs believe Oswald's curtain rod story or
> not, it leaves them with a lot of explaining to do. LNs don't have
> that problem. We only have to believe that two witnesses incorrectly
> guessed the length of the bag Oswald brought with him on Friday. I
> have no problem with that explaination.
It's easier for you to believe that too. It requires no thought
process on your part. It's really not a lot of explaining to do. It
all comes down to who you believe: the people with no agenda, or the
people who had something to hide.
bigdog
Of course. Since getting the rented room on N. Beckley, Oswald had
gone into Dallas with Frazier every Monday and returned with him to
Irving every Friday to spend the weekend with his family. The only
time he varied from this routine was to visit Marina in the hospital
on a Monday after the birth of their second child. But you want us to
believe he decided to return to Irving on Thursday and return to
Dallas on Friday so he could spend the weekend at the rooming house
instead of with his family as was his custom. Maybe he wanted to spend
the weekend in his room admiring his new curtains.
Now you want us to believe Oswald didn't make that bag. Are you
suggesting that someone else made this bag. Did they make it to give
to Oswald so he could carry his curtain rods in it or do you think
Oswald found or stole the bag so he could carry his curtain rods in
it. Those explainations are both even fishier than Oswald making the
bag for his curtain rods.
Then you observe that I am assuming the bag had to contain curtain
rods and nothing else. Excuse me, but I think that would be your
position. I don't think the bag had curtain rods. I think there was
something else in there. Are you now suggesting that there was
something else in the bag with the curtain rods. That's it, Oswald
used the bag to carry the curtain rods and his Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle. By God, maybe Oswald was telling the truth about the curtain
rods being in the bag.
Lastly, you buy into Oswald's fish story about curtain rods in the bag
and you call me naive because I believe the police when they said they
found no curtain rods and that Oswald denied the curtain rod story.
What the police says makes sense and fits what the pattern of evidence
indicates. Oswald's story doesn't make sense for the reasons I
outlined in the original post. You are trying to put a square peg in a
round hole by defending Oswald's story about the curtain rods. It is
always amusing to see the length some CTs will go to in defending
Oswald. The denial of Oswald's guilt by so many CTs is the reason
there is no chance any of their conspiracy theories will ever be taken
seriously by future historians. They will look at the mountain of
evidence that Oswald did it and ignore the fruitcake theories that
somebody else did it.
Walt
> Oswald told Buell Wesley Frazier there were curtain rods in the brown
> paper package Oswald had laid on the back seat of Frazier's car. Does
> any CT actually believe he was telling the truth.
apparently saw Oswald's lunch sack on the back seat of his car.
When the cops threatened to charge him with being a accessory to
murder because he had helped Oswald who they said was guilty of the
assassination, Frazier made up the curtain rod story to protect
himself. When the cops accused him of being an accessory, he told
them he didn't know what was in the sack. He told them that Oswald had
said there were curtain rods in the bag.
Oswald always denied that he had told Frazier that there were curtain
rods in his lunch sack.
Walt
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You guys are too much. I've got Clark telling me the 38" long bag
found in the TSBD was the one Oswald brought in but it was folded up.
Clark can't make up his mind whether it was empty or not. Rossley is
telling us the bag Oswald carried was only 27" long and couldn't have
held a rifle. Now you're telling us it was his lunch sack. That must
have been one BIG SANDWICH!!! Just how many bags did Oswald bring in
that day. It must be a lot more interesting being a CT. You have lots
of freedom to let your imagination run wild. We LNs are forced to
stick to the facts.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Oswald told Buell Wesley Frazier there were curtain rods in the brown
>paper package Oswald had laid on the back seat of Frazier's car. Does
>any CT actually believe he was telling the truth.
How else do you explain the fact that the DPD fingerprinted some curtain rods,
and this fact was buried by the WC?
>That story raises a number of questions. The first one which I haven't
>seen discussed much was why would he make a special trip
He'd made the trip on Thursday before. I'm amazed that you don't know this!
>to Irving on
>a Thursday night just to pick up the curtain rods. If he had followed
>his normal routine of returning to Irving on Friday afternoon, why
>would he need to bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.
>He wasn't going to return to the N. Beckley residence anyway
How do *YOU* know this?
>so he
>would have just had to leave the curtain rods in the TSBD over the
>weekend. Why not just save the special trip and bring the curtain rods
>in on Monday morning.
Because when you've already judged the facts with your speculation - you can
"prove" anything you want...
>Question #2. Why would Oswald have gone to the trouble of building
>such an elaborate bag just to hold a few curtain rods.
Because it wasn't the same bag, probably. None of the eyewitnesses were willing
to ID the bag as being the same, as I recall. They all commented that what
*they* saw was shorter.
>He could have
>carried the curtain rods in without a package.
This is a silly argument. A rifle is FAR easier to carry without any packaging
than a bunch of curtain rods.
>He could have bundled
>them with a few pieces of string, some tape, or even rubber bands.
Or even a bag...
>If he wanted them covered, he could have used a few sheets of newspaper.
Or even a bag...
>Instead he makes a bag a very elaborate bag that problem took him
>quite a while to cut to length and tape together.
"Quite a while?" Tell us, how much experience do you have in a shipping
department of any company?
>Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
>rods were found in the TSBD.
Oh? Then why were curtain rods fingerprinted?
>An empty bag was found
And not photographed in situ - nor do many of the eyewitnesses recall any such
bag. The "bag" is one of the most questionable pieces of evidence in the whole
case.
>but no curtain
>rods. What else could have been in that bag. I'm sorry. Silly
>question.
Yep.
>Question #4. Why did Oswald deny to the police he brought curtain rods
>into the building. Did he think that would be incriminating. Instead
>he denied bringing anything into the building.
Can you *quote* his actual statement?
It's rather difficult to respond to such third-hand "assertions".
>If these questions are too much for even the most dedicated CT to
>answer and instead you believe he made up the story about the curtain
>rods, then why do you think he lied to Frazier. If the bag didn't
>contain curtain rods, what do you think it contained and why weren't
>those contents ever found.
But they *WERE* found. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>It seems to me, whether the CTs believe Oswald's curtain rod story or
>not, it leaves them with a lot of explaining to do. LNs don't have
>that problem. We only have to believe that two witnesses incorrectly
>guessed the length of the bag Oswald brought with him on Friday. I
>have no problem with that explaination.
The "explaining", Bigdog - is all on your side. You can start *anytime* on the
45 questions. I'll be happy to repost them *just for you* if you can't find
'em.
Ben Holmes
says...
Untrue... we have eyewitness testimony to a check he cashed - on a *THURSDAY* in
Irving.
>was to visit Marina in the hospital
>on a Monday after the birth of their second child. But you want us to
>believe he decided to return to Irving on Thursday and return to
>Dallas on Friday so he could spend the weekend at the rooming house
>instead of with his family as was his custom. Maybe he wanted to spend
>the weekend in his room admiring his new curtains.
Sad when you have to use untrue facts and speculations to push your faith...
>Now you want us to believe Oswald didn't make that bag.
Actually, this *IS* what the evidence suggests.
>Are you
>suggesting that someone else made this bag. Did they make it to give
>to Oswald so he could carry his curtain rods in it or do you think
>Oswald found or stole the bag so he could carry his curtain rods in
>it. Those explainations are both even fishier than Oswald making the
>bag for his curtain rods.
>
>Then you observe that I am assuming the bag had to contain curtain
>rods and nothing else. Excuse me, but I think that would be your
>position. I don't think the bag had curtain rods. I think there was
>something else in there. Are you now suggesting that there was
>something else in the bag with the curtain rods. That's it, Oswald
>used the bag to carry the curtain rods and his Mannlicher-Carcano
>rifle. By God, maybe Oswald was telling the truth about the curtain
>rods being in the bag.
>
>Lastly, you buy into Oswald's fish story about curtain rods in the bag
>and you call me naive because I believe the police when they said they
>found no curtain rods and that Oswald denied the curtain rod story.
>What the police says makes sense and fits what the pattern of evidence
>indicates.
Only by *denying* what the evidence actually is.
>Oswald's story doesn't make sense for the reasons I
>outlined in the original post. You are trying to put a square peg in a
>round hole by defending Oswald's story about the curtain rods. It is
>always amusing to see the length some CTs will go to in defending
>Oswald. The denial of Oswald's guilt by so many CTs is the reason
>there is no chance any of their conspiracy theories will ever be taken
>seriously by future historians. They will look at the mountain of
>evidence that Oswald did it and ignore the fruitcake theories that
>somebody else did it.
Sadly, even *this* isn't supported by the known facts...
Ben Holmes
says...
Oh, but you *DON'T*... as I've illustrated time and time again...
Jmoor...@aol.com
In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
use the word "if".
They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
bigdog
> In article <1187221539.280837.220...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
Holmes, you are proven liar. After being caught making up the story
about John Welsh Hodges you have zero credibility. You have a track
record of making things up. You have made a number of assertions in
this post without citing a source for any of them. Nobody is going to
take your word for anything anymore. If you can't provide and exact
quote and cite a verifiable source, nothing you say is worth
responding to anymore. Go tell your lies to your lap dog Healey. He
eats that shit up.
bigdog
> In article <1187262867.382050.108...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No sources. No quotes. Nothing worth responding to here.
bigdog
> In article <1187269867.147704.72...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
No sources. No quotes. Nothing worth responding to here.
Ben Holmes
Jmoor...@aol.com says...
Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
Ben Holmes
says...
And yet, you can't quote any such "lie", and cite the documentation that proves
it.
>After being caught making up the story
>about John Welsh Hodges you have zero credibility.
Liar, aren't you?
>You have a track
>record of making things up.
And yet, you can't cite any of them.
>You have made a number of assertions in
>this post without citing a source for any of them.
Why bother to cite when I *KNOW* that you're going to run away???
>Nobody is going to
>take your word for anything anymore.
Feel free to RESPOND to any individual item, I can certainly supply citations to
virtually anything I assert.
You see, I have no *reason* to make anything up. The evidence favors my
interpretation of 11/22/63.
>If you can't provide and exact
>quote and cite a verifiable source, nothing you say is worth
>responding to anymore.
Of course! The needed excuse for you to run away...
But you've been running ever since the very first post... so you aren't doing
anything new.
>Go tell your lies to your lap dog Healey. He
>eats that shit up.
More ad hominem in place of evidential debate. A certain sign that you've lost,
and you know it.
Ben Holmes
Even when sources and citations *ARE* given - as for example when proving that
the MC *CANNOT* be broken down into the wooden stock, and the rest of the rifle
- you simply duck, deny, and run away.
Nor are you capable of providing your own citations...
Walt
> On Aug 16, 1:50 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1187280904.364201.150...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jmoore1...@aol.com says...
>
> > >Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>
> > >In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
> > >go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
> > >didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
> > >use the word "if".
>
> > >They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>
> > >Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
> > >find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>
> > Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>
>
> You're hilarious, Ben...
>
> By the way, Walt says it was a simple sandwich or lunch bag Oswald
> took to work that morning. Please explain to Walt why he is wrong.
Chuck, you are revealing the shallowness of your thinking. Don't you
realize that a sandwich can be put in any size bag that is big enough
to hold it...... It can be a bag that is way bigger than
necessary.... There is no law that a lunch bag must be a certain
size. And that's basically what Oswald told the conspirators who
were questioning him.
Walt
>
> If there were curtain rods in the bag, destined for his rooming house,
> could you please explain the logic in lugging those things all the way
> into the TSBD when he could've just left them in the car and retrieved
> them after work?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
of the Warren Commission....Which is not the same as sticking to the
facts. But you're right us CT's aren't restricted to abiding by the
lies of the Warren Commission, we are free to examine the evidence and
decide where the truth lies. It's a pity that you've allowed
yourself to be led around by the nose.....but that's your own damned
fault.
Walt
Ben Holmes
>
>On 16 Aug, 14:11, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 1:50 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <1187280904.364201.150...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Jmoore1...@aol.com says...
>>
>> > >Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>>
>> > >In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
>> > >go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
>> > >didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
>> > >use the word "if".
>>
>> > >They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>>
>> > >Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
>> > >find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>>
>> > Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0...
>>
>> You're hilarious, Ben...
Quoting the Warren Commission Volumes is "hilarious?"
We *STILL* see LNT'ers trying to assert that no curtain rods were found...
>> By the way, Walt says it was a simple sandwich or lunch bag Oswald
>> took to work that morning. Please explain to Walt why he is wrong.
What makes you believe he was?
bigdog
> In article <1187303550.564944.135...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes, tell us where and when the curtain rods were found and by
whom. Also, tell us your source for this information. Could this be
another revelation from John Welsh Hodges's new book?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Makes sense to me. Oswald MADE a 38" brown paper bag just so he could
wrap his sandwich in it. I guess a sheet of Reynolds Wrap wouldn't
have done. As I said before, that must have been one BIG SANDWICH for
him to go to all that trouble. But hey, you can't expect a guy to kill
the President of the United States on an empty stomach.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
When the cops threatened to charge him with being a accessory to
murder because he had helped Oswald who they said was guilty of the
assassination, Frazier made up the curtain rod story to protect
himself. When the cops accused him of being an accessory, he told
them he didn't know what was in the sack. He told them that Oswald
had
said there were curtain rods in the bag.
Oswald always denied that he had told Frazier that there were curtain
rods in his lunch sack.
Walt
When the cops threatened to charge him with being a accessory to
murder because he had helped Oswald who they said was guilty of the
assassination, Frazier made up the curtain rod story to protect
himself. When the cops accused him of being an accessory, he told
them he didn't know what was in the sack. He told them that Oswald
had
said there were curtain rods in the bag.
Oswald always denied that he had told Frazier that there were curtain
rods in his lunch sack.
Walt
Bird? Talking to these vegetables about the known evidence is
akin to speaking to jello. Why haven't you learned this yet?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
More ad hominem in place of evidential debate. A certain sign that
you've lost,
and you know it.
Above, one more ludicrous statement from little Benny Holmes WHO HAS
RUN
and hidden from every debate he's been challenged to. See Benny
run!!! Run
Benny run! It's what you do best!!!
Little Benny Holmes realizes this is a written medium when he can and
will change
words, sentences etc to conform to what he continually attempts to
push. Depends
on the night. However, in refusing to accept my challege to a LIVE
debate with LN's
and CT's as guests, he can't do that.......................so HE
RUNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Ben Holmes
says...
>whom.
First you'll have to admit that they *do* exist. And that LNT'ers have been
lying for years each and every time they tried the argument that "no curtain
rods existed, and LHO didn't need them anyway" - both "facts" which have turned
out to be lies.
>Also, tell us your source for this information.
I did. Aren't paying attention??? Can't read, perhaps?
I really can't help dishonesty *OR* illiteracy... which reason would you like to
use this time, Bigdog?
>Could this be
>another revelation from John Welsh Hodges's new book?
No more, and no less, than that from "Reclaiming History II".
But you *knew* that already, didn't you?
bigdog
> In article <1187305792.610280.301...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You provided a link for a request to check 2 curtain rods for
fingerprints. The notation says the print on the curtain rod did not
match Oswald. This request says nothing about these curtain rods being
found in the TSBD. Do you have any addtional information on these
curtain rods or is this the best you can do?
tomnln
those who believe in a conspiracy.
Yo(Momma)Harvey will be opening a Live Audio Chat room on Paltalk.
Download & use FREE www.Paltalk.com
at least That's what Yo(Momma)Harvey said.
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187310839.1...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
Maybe you can explain why the Dallas Police would have gone through
the trouble to dust for fingerprints a set of curtain rods that had
nothing to do with the assassination.
Ben Holmes
>fingerprints. The notation says the print on the curtain rod did not
>match Oswald. This request says nothing about these curtain rods being
>found in the TSBD. Do you have any addtional information on these
>curtain rods or is this the best you can do?
My citation proves exactly what I asserted it does.
Each time a LNT'er tries to lie and assert that no curtain rods were found, or
that LHO didn't need any - they are providing LNT'er factoids that are
contradicted by the evidence.
That's why LNT'ers just *hate* the evidence... but you *did* ask for it.
Ben Holmes
Don't confuse Bigdog... he's having a hard enough time with the evidence and
facts.
bigdog
> In article <1187321710.391011.140...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You claimed curtain rods were found in the TSBD. The piece of evidence
you cited says nothing about where these curtain rods came from.
That's why I asked you if you had any more information regarding them.
Apparently you don't. Or maybe you are waiting to let John Welsh
Hodges reveal this in his new book.
Walt
> In article <1187221539.280837.220...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
>
>
>
> >Oswald told Buell Wesley Frazier there were curtain rods in the brown
> >paper package Oswald had laid on the back seat of Frazier's car. Does
> >any CT actually believe he was telling the truth.
>
> How else do you explain the fact that the DPD fingerprinted some curtain rods,
> and this fact was buried by the WC?
>
> >That story raises a number of questions. The first one which I haven't
> >seen discussed much was why would he make a special trip
>
> He'd made the trip on Thursday before. I'm amazed that you don't know this!
>
> >to Irving on
> >a Thursday night just to pick up the curtain rods. If he had followed
> >his normal routine of returning to Irving on Friday afternoon, why
> >would he need to bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.
> >He wasn't going to return to the N. Beckley residence anyway
>
> How do *YOU* know this?
>
> >so he
> >would have just had to leave the curtain rods in the TSBD over the
> >weekend. Why not just save the special trip and bring the curtain rods
> >in on Monday morning.
>
> Because when you've already judged the facts with your speculation - you can
> "prove" anything you want...
>
> >Question #2. Why would Oswald have gone to the trouble of building
> >such an elaborate bag just to hold a few curtain rods.
PROVE that Oswald fabricated a bag of any kind..... I can prove that
the FBI fabricated a paper bag to make it appear that Oswald concealed
the TSBD rifle in that bag..... Can you PROVE that Oswald constructed
a paper bag??
Walt
aeffects
c'mon Jer.....get with it.....
David Von Pein
You're nuts. You can't prove any such thing, Mr. Kook.
The FBI came right out and ADMITTED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION that they
"created" a bag! But, of course, it wasn't created for the purpose the
conspiracy kooks would like. It was created for identification
purposes only, as Mr. Cadigan fully explained to the Commission.
(Naturally, Cadigan is one of the hundreds of "official liars" in this
case, per the conspiracy-loving clowns of the world...right
Walt?)........
JAMES CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to
ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School
Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
===============================================
The following post re. the paper bags (from June 17, 2007) is worth a
repeat performance here......
>>> "The bag in the photo is NOT the bag Oswald carried that morning." <<<
Yes, it is. The caption to the photo in VB's book specifically states
the bag in the picture is the same bag found on the 6th Floor (i.e.,
CE142).
>>> "Both Randle and Frazier told the FBI that the bag shown in da Bug's book was much bigger than the bag they saw oswald carry. Of course da Bug doesn't reveal any of this. He merely publishes a misleading photo to fool the unwary." <<<
Get the book {Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"} and READ some
of it before making your usual ass of yourself. (That'd be kinda
special, wouldn't it?)
Vince doesn't "merely publish a photo" re. the paper-bag controversy.
There's plenty in the text of the book about the bag lengths, with
Vince laying it all out on the table, including the "27-28 inch"
estimates made by both Frazier and Randle.
Let's look.....
"Both Frazier and his sister, although saying the package found in the
sniper's nest was "similar" in color to the one they saw Oswald
carrying on the morning of the assassination (2 H 240, WCT Buell
Wesley Frazier; 2 H 249, WCT Linnie Mae Randle), described the package
they had seen Oswald carrying as being shorter than what would have
been needed for the disassembled rifle-a fact that conspiracy critic
Sylvia Meagher called "the central weakness of the Commission's
thesis" that Oswald carried the murder weapon into the Depository the
day of the assassination.
"Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from her
kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of the
assassination, described the package as a "heavy brown bag, heavier
than a grocery bag" that was "more bulky" toward the bottom (where the
butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top.
"She also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long--
the bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length,
while the 40 1/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 34 4/5 inches.
When shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle
recalled that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width.
(2 H 248-250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407-408; 344/5
inches: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the
Fact, p.54-
57) ....
"The Warren Commission concluded that Frazier and Randle probably
erred in their recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and
it was understandable the two had done so. Neither Frazier nor his
sister, the only two people who saw Oswald with the package, suspected
that it was of any significance.
"They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
behind the wheel of his car. After arriving at the Depository, Oswald
got out first and remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to
ultimately fifty feet (by the time Oswald reached the Book Depository
Building) as they walked toward the building (the first time, he said,
that Oswald had ever walked in front of him into the building).
"During the walk, the package was partly obscured by Oswald's hand,
arm, and shoulder as he carried it. (CE 2009, 24 H 409; 2 H 228, WCT
Buell Wesley Frazier) Frazier said he "didn't pay much attention" to
the package because he didn't have "any reason to doubt his [Oswald's]
word" that it contained curtain rods. ....
"Under Frazier's supervision, the FBI measured the length of that
visible portion to be 9X1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could
only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm,
and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above
his right shoulder ("you couldn't tell that he had a package from the
back"), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his
armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it
anywhere other than under your armpit" (2 H 243).
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241,
243).
"Just as importantly, Frazier told the Warren Commission that "I
couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he
could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I
didn't see it from the front." Question: "Now, you said that some of
the bag might have been beyond his hands?" "Yes, sir. I said it could
have, now I am not saying it was." "In other words, it [the bag] could
have been longer than his hands?" "Right." But later, Frazier said the
bag could have extended "widthwise, not lengthwise," and that he did
not think "it was longer than his hands." (2 H 240-241)
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused." ---
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes; Pages
408-409)
~~~~~~~
BTW, the "fake" bag (as Walt The Kook states it) was not meant to
REPLACE the real 6th-Floor paper bag. It was produced merely to aid
the witnesses who saw the original bag on 11/22. The only reason it
was created was because the testing done to the original bag resulted
in a very different-looking bag (discoloration mainly). The FBI's
James Cadigan explained it under oath to the WC. (He's a liar, right
Walt? What else?)......
Mr. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to
ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School
Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8d006578ddac98b5
===============================================
Ben Holmes
Nope. Those words never left my lips.
When you're willing to lie to attempt to forward a debate - then all you've
demonstrated is that you're unable to *legitimately* refute what I say.
>The piece of evidence
>you cited says nothing about where these curtain rods came from.
Nope... it doesn't.
>That's why I asked you if you had any more information regarding them.
It's enough, isn't it?
Why did the Warren Commission hide this fact?
>Apparently you don't.
Not *I*... your vaulted 'complete' investigation... and Warren Commission that
was willing to lie about the topic.
>Or maybe you are waiting to let John Welsh
>Hodges reveal this in his new book.
Got burned on that one, didn't you?
bigdog
> In article <1187362717.347623.265...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
This latest response from Holmes so clearly demonstrates what a
slimey, evasive, and dishonest piece of shit he is. In an earlier
post, Holmes responded to a question I asked when I began this thread
as follows:
bigdog asked:
">Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No
curtain
>rods were found in the TSBD. "
Holmes responded:
"Oh? Then why were curtain rods fingerprinted?"
Later on Jmoore1 made the following observation:
">Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
>go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
>didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
>use the word "if".
>They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
>find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
Holmes responded:
Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>From the beginning, the question was whether curtain rods were found
at the TSBD.
Anyone can plainly see that Holmes was infering with his responses
that curtain rods were found in the TSBD, Curtain rods found elsewhere
would have been irrelevant to this discussion. But Holmes carefully
refrained from coming right out and saying the curtain rods were found
at the TSBD to give himself the wiggle room to cut and run when
pressed for evidence that curtain rods were found in the TSBD. So now
he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain rods were
found in the TSBD, but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
purpose at the time.
Holmes must resort to these chickenshit word games because he is
totally lacking in substance. He lacks the hairy balls to ever take a
position and defend it just as he lacks the hairy balls to accept
YoHarvey's challenge to a live debate. He might be force to actually
take a position on something and Holmes will never allow that to
happen. He always wants to be in a position to cut and run. He is
afraid if he went mano-a-mano with YoHarvey or any other LN, he'd get
his nuts nailed to the wall. He shouldn't worry about that. He doesn't
have any.
Ben Holmes
>>
>> Nope. Those words never left my lips.
>>
>> When you're willing to lie to attempt to forward a debate - then all you've
>> demonstrated is that you're unable to *legitimately* refute what I say.
No response... I wonder why? :)
>> >The piece of evidence
>> >you cited says nothing about where these curtain rods came from.
>>
>> Nope... it doesn't.
>>
>> >That's why I asked you if you had any more information regarding them.
>>
>> It's enough, isn't it?
>>
>> Why did the Warren Commission hide this fact?
Dead silence... Bigdog has no answer for this.
>> >Apparently you don't.
>>
>> Not *I*... your vaulted 'complete' investigation... and Warren Commission
>> that was willing to lie about the topic.
More dead silence... again, Bigdog can't respond - there's nothing he can say.
>> >Or maybe you are waiting to let John Welsh
>> >Hodges reveal this in his new book.
>>
>> Got burned on that one, didn't you?
Embarrassed, Bigdog says nothing...
>This latest response from Holmes so clearly demonstrates what a
>slimey, evasive, and dishonest piece of shit he is.
Actually, it proves beyond all doubt that you merely lied about me claiming that
the curtain rods had been found in the TSBD.
I made no such statement, nor have I *EVER* claimed a location where they were
found. I only prove, beyond any doubt, that curtain rods *DID* figure in this
investigation - so every time LNT'ers try to assert "Where are the curtain
rods?", they're lying.
That you are unable to quote me saying what you asserted I did demonstrates you
to be a liar - you're even unwilling to retract your false assertion...
>In an earlier post, Holmes responded to a question I asked when I began
>this thread as follows:
>
>bigdog asked:
>>Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
>>rods were found in the TSBD. "
>
>Holmes responded:
>"Oh? Then why were curtain rods fingerprinted?"
>
>Later on Jmoore1 made the following observation:
>">Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>
>
>>In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
>>go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
>>didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
>>use the word "if".
>
>
>>They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>
>
>>Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
>>find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>
>Holmes responded:
>Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>
>>From the beginning, the question was whether curtain rods were found
>>at the TSBD.
That may be *your* interpretation - I'm merely proving that curtain rods *WERE*
found, documented, and had a place in the investigation.
There is *NO* documentation that states that they were found at the TSBD... so
why would I assert that?
You're a liar, Bigdog... you can no longer try the tactic that the curtain rod
story must be bogus because there's no evidence supporting it - for clearly,
THERE *IS* EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. You just want to argue with me on where they
were found - when I've *never* made any such claim.
>Anyone can plainly see that Holmes was infering with his responses
>that curtain rods were found in the TSBD,
So when I assert that you're a child molester - any response by you will admit
of the possibility that you *are* a child molester?
Tis silly...
>Curtain rods found elsewhere
>would have been irrelevant to this discussion.
No, they wouldn't. The topic, as the title indicates, is the belief or
non-belief in Oswald's "curtain rod story".
Is their any evidence to support it? Yes or no.
It's just that simple, Bigdog.
I can't help your illiteracy.
But I *CAN* point it out when you lie about what I've said.
>But Holmes carefully
>refrained from coming right out and saying the curtain rods were found
>at the TSBD
I *also* carefully refrained from saying outright that you're a child molester.
>to give himself the wiggle room to cut and run when
>pressed for evidence that curtain rods were found in the TSBD. So now
>he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain rods were
>found in the TSBD,
How can I "retreat" from an argument I never made?
>but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
>either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
>purpose at the time.
How can I *deny* that they were found at the TSBD? In fact, that's certainly
the most *likely* explaination for the DPD fingerprinting them.
But I leave speculation to the LNT'er side... the evidence, AS IT EXISTS, is
good enough for me.
>Holmes must resort to these chickenshit word games because he is
>totally lacking in substance. He lacks the hairy balls to ever take a
>position and defend it
I've defended, with citation, the fact that curtain rods WERE found, and DID
play a part in this investigation.
Can't wriggle out of that one, Bigdog!
>just as he lacks the hairy balls to accept
>YoHarvey's challenge to a live debate.
Certainly I accept it. If, at *ANY TIME*, he should really be interested, he
need only respond to the 45 questions. For certainly any reasonable debate will
be forced into those areas. But if he's unwilling to provide a reasoned
response to the 45 question post - then he's not really serious about wanting a
debate.
Words mean little when there's nothing to back them up.
>He might be force to actually
>take a position on something and Holmes will never allow that to
>happen. He always wants to be in a position to cut and run. He is
>afraid if he went mano-a-mano with YoHarvey or any other LN, he'd get
>his nuts nailed to the wall. He shouldn't worry about that. He doesn't
>have any.
Ad hominem merely demonstrates that you've lost on the merits of the evidence.
YoHarvey
> In article <1187405316.576779.69...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, bigdog says...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
One more thing, bigdog:
Maybe you can explain why the Dallas Police would have gone through
the trouble to dust for fingerprints a set of curtain rods that had
nothing to do with the assassination.
Fuckin Jesus never disappoints...he simply adores showing his
continued stupidity....IT'S CALLED INVESITGATIN JESUS. It's
what Police Departments
do.....................duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> >just as he lacks the hairy balls to accept
> >YoHarvey's challenge to a live debate.
> Certainly I accept it. If, at *ANY TIME*, he should really be interested, he
> need only respond to the 45 questions. For certainly any reasonable debate will
> be forced into those areas. But if he's unwilling to provide a reasoned
> response to the 45 question post - then he's not really serious about wanting a
> debate.
> Words mean little when there's nothing to back them up.
Then why haven't you agreed to debate YoHarvey live Holmes?? You can
debate your 45 questions live he has already said he will debate you
on them...not in text, LIVE....your using every excuse you can, bottom
line is you're still a COWARD
tomnln
He knows Nothing of evidence/testimony so, he knew he would have gottern
Burried.
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187456165....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
pals to talk to.
bigdog
> In article <1187405316.576779.69...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, bigdog says...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can dance around all you want Holmes, you are evading the issue.
Go back to beginning of this thread which I started. The question was
whether Oswald was telling the truth when he told Frazier there were
curtain rods in the bag he put in the back seat of Frazier's car.
Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD. If he had told Frazier the
truth, curtain rods should have been found in the TSBD. They weren't
and you now acknowledge this. No curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
Oswald lied to Frazier about the contents of the bag. Curtain rods
taken from any other location don't change that simple fact.
Several CTs have argued that Oswald was being truthful when he told
Frazier he had curtain rods in the bag. Are you finally going to
distance yourself from those folks and admit Oswald lied or are you
going to continue to be evasive on this one simple point. It's time to
man up and tell us what you believe. Was Oswald telling the truth when
he told Frazier he had curtain rods in the bag or was he lying.
Ben Holmes
>, bigdog
>> >> >> >> says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Aug 16, 6:45 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>, Walt
>> >> >> >>says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On 16 Aug, 14:11, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 16, 1:50 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>ups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Jmoore1...@aol.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>>
>s office
>> >>to
>> >>>>>> >> >> > >go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were f=
>ound".
>> >>They
>> >>>>>> >> >> > >didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and =
>they
>> >>didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >use the word "if".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>>
>hey
>> >>didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>>
>_0...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You're hilarious, Ben...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Quoting the Warren Commission Volumes is "hilarious?"
>>
>re
>> >>found...
>>
>> >>>> >> >> >> By the way, Walt says it was a simple sandwich or lunch bag=
> Oswald
>> >>>> >> >> >> took to work that morning. Please explain to Walt why he is=
> wrong.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> What makes you believe he was?
>>
>n't you
>> >>>> >> >> >realize that a sandwich can be put in any size bag that is bi=
>g enough
>> >> >> >> >> >to hold it...... It can be a bag that is way bigger than
>tain
>> >> >> >> >> >size. And that's basically what Oswald told the conspirat=
>ors who
>> >> >> >> >> >were questioning him.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Walt
>>
>ing
>> >>house,
>> >>>>>> >> >> could you please explain the logic in lugging those things a=
>ll the
>> >>way
>> >>>>>> >> >> into the TSBD when he could've just left them in the car and
>> >>retrieved
>> >> >> >> >> >> them after work?
>>
>by
>> >> >> >> >whom.
>>
>> >>>>>> First you'll have to admit that they *do* exist. And that LNT'ers=
> have
>> >>been
>> >>>>>> lying for years each and every time they tried the argument that "=
>no
>> >>curtain
>> >> >>>>rods existed, and LHO didn't need them anyway" - both "facts" whic=
>h have
>> >> >>turned
>> >> >> >> out to be lies.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Also, tell us your source for this information.
>>
>> >> >> >> I did. Aren't paying attention??? Can't read, perhaps?
>>
>d you
>> >>like
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> >> use this time, Bigdog?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Could this be
>> >> >> >> >another revelation from John Welsh Hodges's new book?
>>
>> >> >> >> No more, and no less, than that from "Reclaiming History II".
>>
>> >> >> >> But you *knew* that already, didn't you?
>>
>> >> >> >You provided a link for a request to check 2 curtain rods for
>ot
>> >> >> >match Oswald. This request says nothing about these curtain rods b=
>eing
>> >> >> >found in the TSBD. Do you have any addtional information on these
>> >> >> >curtain rods or is this the best you can do?
>>
>> >> >> My citation proves exactly what I asserted it does.
>>
>found, or
>> >> >> that LHO didn't need any - they are providing LNT'er factoids that =
>are
>> >> >> contradicted by the evidence.
>>
>r it.
>>
>> >> >You claimed curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
>>
>> >> Nope. Those words never left my lips.
>>
>ou've
>> >> demonstrated is that you're unable to *legitimately* refute what I say.
>>
>> No response... I wonder why? :)
>>
>> >> >The piece of evidence
>> >> >you cited says nothing about where these curtain rods came from.
>>
>> >> Nope... it doesn't.
>>
>> >> >That's why I asked you if you had any more information regarding them.
>>
>> >> It's enough, isn't it?
>>
>> >> Why did the Warren Commission hide this fact?
>>
>> Dead silence... Bigdog has no answer for this.
>>
>> >> >Apparently you don't.
>>
>ion
>> >> that was willing to lie about the topic.
>>
> say.
>>
>> >> >Or maybe you are waiting to let John Welsh
>> >> >Hodges reveal this in his new book.
>>
>> >> Got burned on that one, didn't you?
>>
>> Embarrassed, Bigdog says nothing...
>>
>> >This latest response from Holmes so clearly demonstrates what a
>> >slimey, evasive, and dishonest piece of shit he is.
>>
>ng that
>> the curtain rods had been found in the TSBD.
>>
> were
>> found. I only prove, beyond any doubt, that curtain rods *DID* figure in=
> this
>> investigation - so every time LNT'ers try to assert "Where are the curtain
>> rods?", they're lying.
>>
>es you
>> to be a liar - you're even unwilling to retract your false assertion...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In an earlier post, Holmes responded to a question I asked when I began
>> >this thread as follows:
>>
>> >bigdog asked:
>> >>Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
>> >>rods were found in the TSBD. "
>>
>> >Holmes responded:
>> >"Oh? Then why were curtain rods fingerprinted?"
>>
>> >Later on Jmoore1 made the following observation:
>> >">Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>>
>> >>In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
>> >>go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
>> >>didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
>> >>use the word "if".
>>
>> >>They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>>
>> >>Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
>> >>find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>>
>> >Holmes responded:
>> >Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>>
>> >>From the beginning, the question was whether curtain rods were found
>> >>at the TSBD.
>>
>*WERE*
>> found, documented, and had a place in the investigation.
>>
>.=2E so
>> why would I assert that?
>>
>n rod
>> story must be bogus because there's no evidence supporting it - for clear=
>ly,
>> THERE *IS* EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. You just want to argue with me on whe=
>re they
>> were found - when I've *never* made any such claim.
>>
>> >Anyone can plainly see that Holmes was infering with his responses
>> >that curtain rods were found in the TSBD,
>>
>admit
>> of the possibility that you *are* a child molester?
>>
>> Tis silly...
>>
>> >Curtain rods found elsewhere
>> >would have been irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>> No, they wouldn't. The topic, as the title indicates, is the belief or
>> non-belief in Oswald's "curtain rod story".
>>
>> Is their any evidence to support it? Yes or no.
>>
>> It's just that simple, Bigdog.
>>
>> I can't help your illiteracy.
>>
>> But I *CAN* point it out when you lie about what I've said.
>>
>> >But Holmes carefully
>> >refrained from coming right out and saying the curtain rods were found
>> >at the TSBD
>>
>ester.
>>
>> >to give himself the wiggle room to cut and run when
>> >pressed for evidence that curtain rods were found in the TSBD. So now
>> >he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain rods were
>> >found in the TSBD,
>>
>> How can I "retreat" from an argument I never made?
>>
>> >but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
>> >either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
>> >purpose at the time.
>>
>inly
>> the most *likely* explaination for the DPD fingerprinting them.
>>
> is
>> good enough for me.
>>
>> >Holmes must resort to these chickenshit word games because he is
>> >totally lacking in substance. He lacks the hairy balls to ever take a
>> >position and defend it
>>
>DID
>> play a part in this investigation.
>>
>> Can't wriggle out of that one, Bigdog!
>>
>> >just as he lacks the hairy balls to accept
>> >YoHarvey's challenge to a live debate.
>>
>, he
>> need only respond to the 45 questions. For certainly any reasonable deba=
>te will
>> be forced into those areas. But if he's unwilling to provide a reasoned
>ting a
>> debate.
>>
>> Words mean little when there's nothing to back them up.
>>
>>
>>
>> >He might be
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You can dance around all you want Holmes, you are evading the issue.
No, the issue is quite simple.
You asserted that I'd said something.
Yet you can't quote me saying it.
>Go back to beginning of this thread which I started. The question was
>whether Oswald was telling the truth when he told Frazier there were
>curtain rods in the bag he put in the back seat of Frazier's car.
>Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD. If he had told Frazier the
>truth, curtain rods should have been found in the TSBD. They weren't
>and you now acknowledge this.
No, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS! You're so tied up in your faith that you're
willing to lie at the drop of a hat, aren't you?
>No curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
Well, we certainly know that this was the desired result.
>Oswald lied to Frazier about the contents of the bag.
You don't know this... sad isn't it?
>Curtain rods
>taken from any other location don't change that simple fact.
They *DO* change the tune of LNT'ers, who've for years been singing the song
that curtain rods weren't even in the picture.
Yet we know know that they certainly were.
And you're so scared of the facts, that you can't face up to the simple points I
made above...
>Several CTs have argued that Oswald was being truthful when he told
>Frazier he had curtain rods in the bag.
Tis certainly possible.
>Are you finally going to
>distance yourself from those folks and admit Oswald lied or are you
>going to continue to be evasive on this one simple point.
Why would I "admit" Oswald lied? Are you going to continue to be evasive on
every point I raise?
>It's time to man up and tell us what you believe.
Why should I bother? I'd *rather* tell you what the evidence is - since you
apparently know so little about it.
>Was Oswald telling the truth when
>he told Frazier he had curtain rods in the bag or was he lying.
Is that what he told Frazier?
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:17eec3l8tr7rmc6fn...@4ax.com...
Sam Brown
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:52Pxi.51826$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
> Dykes talk to everyone.
Yep even to you Toothless.
aeffects
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:52Pxi.51826$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
>
> > Dykes talk to everyone.
>
> Yep even to you Toothless.
coming out of the closet, eh Sammy?
>
>
> > "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187497316....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 9:02 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:52Pxi.51826$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
>>
>> > Dykes talk to everyone.
>>
>> Yep even to you Toothless.
>
> coming out of the closet, eh Sammy?
As in so many areas of your life you are sadly behind the times. I haven't
been "closeted" for 22 years. Not the fizziest drink in the fridge are you?
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:46c7c0e2$0$19339$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
tomnln
Can you imagine that?
These LN's admit to being Abominations & Satanists and, STILL won't address
evidence/testimony from the report they accept.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187497316....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
curtain rods was Billy Lovelady.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3dQxi.267258$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
bigdog
> In article <1187405316.576779.69...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, bigdog says...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well who didn't see this one coming? Several posts ago Holmes denied
saying curtain rods were found in the TSBD. Of course he wouldn't
actually say curtain rods weren't found in the TSBD so he could back
away from that position as well. This is exactly what I predicted he
would do when I wrote the following:
"So now he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain
rods were
found in the TSBD, but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
purpose at the time. "
Holmes refuses to take a position on the curtain rods. This is his
standard operating procedure. He refuses to take a position on
anything. He whines and whines because I won't refute the things he
says, yet when I do, he denies he ever said it. If I have claimed
Holmes said something, that was my mistake. Holmes never says
anything. He isn't man enough to ever do that. Instead he will insuate
something without ever coming right out and saying it, then he will
deny he ever said such a thing, then later he will deny his denial.
Anyone who has ever spent any time trying to discuss anything with
Holmes knows this.
I'll admit to another mistake as well. I called Holmes out and asked
him to man up and state clearly whether he believes curtain rods were
found in the TSBD. I should have known better. Holmes lacks the hairy
balls to man up to anything. Holmes has no interest in debating the
issues surrounding the assassination of JFK. He would rather play word
games. There is a huge difference. A debater will take a position and
strongly defend it. Holmes will never take a postion he can't retreat
from later. No one has to guess where I stand on any issue I discuss
on these boards. That certainly could not be said about Holmes. He is
nothing but a lying, gutless, dickless, toothless, round-mouthed piece
of shit.
Ben Holmes
>, bigdog
>> >> >> >> says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Aug 16, 6:45 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>, Walt
>> >> >> >>says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On 16 Aug, 14:11, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 16, 1:50 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>ups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Jmoore1...@aol.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>>
>s office
>> >>to
>> >>>>>> >> >> > >go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were f=
>ound".
>> >>They
>> >>>>>> >> >> > >didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and =
>they
>> >>didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >use the word "if".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>>
>hey
>> >>didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>>
>_0...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You're hilarious, Ben...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Quoting the Warren Commission Volumes is "hilarious?"
>>
>re
>> >>found...
>>
>> >>>> >> >> >> By the way, Walt says it was a simple sandwich or lunch bag=
> Oswald
>> >>>> >> >> >> took to work that morning. Please explain to Walt why he is=
> wrong.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> What makes you believe he was?
>>
>n't you
>> >>>> >> >> >realize that a sandwich can be put in any size bag that is bi=
>g enough
>> >> >> >> >> >to hold it...... It can be a bag that is way bigger than
>tain
>> >> >> >> >> >size. And that's basically what Oswald told the conspirat=
>ors who
>> >> >> >> >> >were questioning him.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Walt
>>
>ing
>> >>house,
>> >>>>>> >> >> could you please explain the logic in lugging those things a=
>ll the
>> >>way
>> >>>>>> >> >> into the TSBD when he could've just left them in the car and
>> >>retrieved
>> >> >> >> >> >> them after work?
>>
>by
>> >> >> >> >whom.
>>
>> >>>>>> First you'll have to admit that they *do* exist. And that LNT'ers=
> have
>> >>been
>> >>>>>> lying for years each and every time they tried the argument that "=
>no
>> >>curtain
>> >> >>>>rods existed, and LHO didn't need them anyway" - both "facts" whic=
>h have
>> >> >>turned
>> >> >> >> out to be lies.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Also, tell us your source for this information.
>>
>> >> >> >> I did. Aren't paying attention??? Can't read, perhaps?
>>
>d you
>> >>like
>> >> >>to
>> >> >> >> use this time, Bigdog?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Could this be
>> >> >> >> >another revelation from John Welsh Hodges's new book?
>>
>> >> >> >> No more, and no less, than that from "Reclaiming History II".
>>
>> >> >> >> But you *knew* that already, didn't you?
>>
>> >> >> >You provided a link for a request to check 2 curtain rods for
>ot
>> >> >> >match Oswald. This request says nothing about these curtain rods b=
>eing
>> >> >> >found in the TSBD. Do you have any addtional information on these
>> >> >> >curtain rods or is this the best you can do?
>>
>> >> >> My citation proves exactly what I asserted it does.
>>
>found, or
>> >> >> that LHO didn't need any - they are providing LNT'er factoids that =
>are
>> >> >> contradicted by the evidence.
>>
>r it.
>>
>> >> >You claimed curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
>>
>> >> Nope. Those words never left my lips.
>>
>ou've
>> >> demonstrated is that you're unable to *legitimately* refute what I say.
>>
>> No response... I wonder why? :)
>>
>> >> >The piece of evidence
>> >> >you cited says nothing about where these curtain rods came from.
>>
>> >> Nope... it doesn't.
>>
>> >> >That's why I asked you if you had any more information regarding them.
>>
>> >> It's enough, isn't it?
>>
>> >> Why did the Warren Commission hide this fact?
>>
>> Dead silence... Bigdog has no answer for this.
>>
>> >> >Apparently you don't.
>>
>ion
>> >> that was willing to lie about the topic.
>>
> say.
>>
>> >> >Or maybe you are waiting to let John Welsh
>> >> >Hodges reveal this in his new book.
>>
>> >> Got burned on that one, didn't you?
>>
>> Embarrassed, Bigdog says nothing...
>>
>> >This latest response from Holmes so clearly demonstrates what a
>> >slimey, evasive, and dishonest piece of shit he is.
>>
>ng that
>> the curtain rods had been found in the TSBD.
>>
> were
>> found. I only prove, beyond any doubt, that curtain rods *DID* figure in=
> this
>> investigation - so every time LNT'ers try to assert "Where are the curtain
>> rods?", they're lying.
>>
>> That you are unable to quote me saying what you asserted I did demonstrates
>> you to be a liar - you're even unwilling to retract your false assertion...
And *STILL* no quote...
>> >In an earlier post, Holmes responded to a question I asked when I began
>> >this thread as follows:
>>
>> >bigdog asked:
>> >>Question #3. What happened to the bag and the curtain rods. No curtain
>> >>rods were found in the TSBD. "
>>
>> >Holmes responded:
>> >"Oh? Then why were curtain rods fingerprinted?"
>>
>> >Later on Jmoore1 made the following observation:
>> >">Ben, I believe that you brought this up once before:
>>
>> >>In September 1964, the FBI headquarters ordered the Dallas office to
>> >>go to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found". They
>> >>didn't say "inquire", they didn't say "investigate", and they didn't
>> >>use the word "if".
>>
>> >>They said, "determine that no curtain rods were found".
>>
>> >>Translation: "Go to the TSBD and tell those people that they didn't
>> >>find any curtain rods and to keep their mouths shut."
>>
>> >Holmes responded:
>> >Yep... but we *KNOW* that the DPD found curtain rods:
>>
>> >>From the beginning, the question was whether curtain rods were found
>> >>at the TSBD.
>>
>> That may be *your* interpretation - I'm merely proving that curtain rods
>> *WERE* found, documented, and had a place in the investigation.
>>
>> There is *NO* documentation that states that they were found at the TSBD.
>> so why would I assert that?
>>
>> You're a liar, Bigdog... you can no longer try the tactic that the curtain
>> rod story must be bogus because there's no evidence supporting it - for
>> clearly, THERE *IS* EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. You just want to argue with
>> me on where they were found - when I've *never* made any such claim.
That yellow stripe down Bigdog's back is getting wider... dead silence here.
>> >Anyone can plainly see that Holmes was infering with his responses
>> >that curtain rods were found in the TSBD,
>>
>> So when I assert that you're a child molester - any response by you will
>> admit of the possibility that you *are* a child molester?
>>
>> Tis silly...
Perhaps I struck a nerve?
>> >Curtain rods found elsewhere
>> >would have been irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>> No, they wouldn't. The topic, as the title indicates, is the belief or
>> non-belief in Oswald's "curtain rod story".
>>
>> Is their any evidence to support it? Yes or no.
Dead silence...
>> It's just that simple, Bigdog.
>>
>> I can't help your illiteracy.
>>
>> But I *CAN* point it out when you lie about what I've said.
>>
>> >But Holmes carefully
>> >refrained from coming right out and saying the curtain rods were found
>> >at the TSBD
>>
>> I *also* carefully refrained from saying outright that you're a child
>> molester.
>>
>> >to give himself the wiggle room to cut and run when
>> >pressed for evidence that curtain rods were found in the TSBD. So now
>> >he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain rods were
>> >found in the TSBD,
>>
>> How can I "retreat" from an argument I never made?
And although Bigdog was too dishonest to answer this - he went right ahead and
*DUPLICATED* this argument below.
Unwilling to acknowledge that I've answered him, he merely pretends that I
haven't. Rather cowardly, wouldn't you say?
>> >but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
>> >either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
>> >purpose at the time.
>>
>> How can I *deny* that they were found at the TSBD? In fact, that's
>> certainly the most *likely* explaination for the DPD fingerprinting them.
>>
>> But I leave speculation to the LNT'er side... the evidence, AS IT EXISTS,
>> is good enough for me.
And although I've been quite clear about my belief here - Bigdog will lie, and
say that I refuse to supply it.
But here it is... in this very post ... and Bigdog doesn't bark, not even a
whimper... just dead silence again...
>> >Holmes must resort to these chickenshit word games because he is
>> >totally lacking in substance. He lacks the hairy balls to ever take a
>> >position and defend it
>>
>> I've defended, with citation, the fact that curtain rods WERE found, and
>> DID play a part in this investigation.
>>
>> Can't wriggle out of that one, Bigdog!
Again, dead silence...
>> >just as he lacks the hairy balls to accept
>> >YoHarvey's challenge to a live debate.
>>
>> Certainly I accept it. If, at *ANY TIME*, he should really be interested,
>> he need only respond to the 45 questions. For certainly any reasonable
>> debate will be forced into those areas. But if he's unwilling to provide
>> a reasoned response to the 45 question post - then he's not really serious
>> about wanting a debate.
>>
>> Words mean little when there's nothing to back them up.
Nor, I suspect; will Bigdog ever even contemplate answering the 45 questions,
point by point.
>> >He might be
>>
>> ...
>>
>
>Well who didn't see this one coming? Several posts ago Holmes denied
>saying curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
Nope. Never been done, nor can you quote me saying so...
You're a liar, Bigdog.
Why can't you *QUOTE* me saying what you assert I did???
>Of course he wouldn't
>actually say curtain rods weren't found in the TSBD so he could back
>away from that position as well.
Of course not. THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T EXIST! You think that you're smearing me
for being true to the actual evidence, but what you're really demonstrating is
that I *REFUSE* to go beyond what the evidence shows.
>This is exactly what I predicted he
>would do when I wrote the following:
>
>"So now he is apparently retreating from the argument that curtain
>rods were
>found in the TSBD, but notice he doesn't come right out and say that
>either because later on he can deny his denial if that suits his
>purpose at the time. "
Never retreated, because I never asserted that the curtain rods *WERE* found in
the TSBD.
You're a liar, Bigdog... you put words in my mouth, then argue against them.
But you can't *QUOTE* me saying such. Why is that? And why do you refuse to
answer point by point?
>Holmes refuses to take a position on the curtain rods.
Untrue. Why bother to lie, Bigdog? My position has been stated numerous times
in this very post.
>This is his
>standard operating procedure. He refuses to take a position on
>anything.
Why bother to lie, Bigdog? I give "positions" all the time... it's called
"evidence."
>He whines and whines because I won't refute the things he
>says, yet when I do, he denies he ever said it.
In other words - the only things you can "refute" are things I never said.
How easy for you!
>If I have claimed
>Holmes said something, that was my mistake.
"If"???
I've proven it. You can't quote it. Yet you're too gutlessly dishonest to
retract your false statements.
>Holmes never says anything.
And yet, you can never seem to respond, point by point, to my 'nothingness'
>He isn't man enough to ever do that. Instead he will insuate
>something without ever coming right out and saying it, then he will
>deny he ever said such a thing, then later he will deny his denial.
Feel free at any time, Bigdog; TO QUOTE WHAT YOU ASSERT I SAID!
All you're doing is feeling sorry for being caught and nailed to the truth.
>Anyone who has ever spent any time trying to discuss anything with
>Holmes knows this.
>
>I'll admit to another mistake as well. I called Holmes out and asked
>him to man up and state clearly whether he believes curtain rods were
>found in the TSBD.
Yep... and I gave an answer. For unlike cowards like you, I *DO* respond point
by point. I don't bypass anything.
>I should have known better. Holmes lacks the hairy
>balls to man up to anything. Holmes has no interest in debating the
>issues surrounding the assassination of JFK.
Is this the excuse you're creating to avoid debating the facts?
It's really not necessary to present an excuse... we *know* that LNT'ers can't
debate the evidence. Ad hominem and speculation is your forte.
>He would rather play word games.
Words have meanings... when you assert I've said something - but can't quote me
saying it - then blame me for *NOT* saying it... I'm not the one with literacy
or honesty problems.
>There is a huge difference. A debater will take a position and
>strongly defend it.
As I do all the time. "Prosectors", anyone?
>Holmes will never take a postion he can't retreat
>from later.
I've rarely needed to 'retreat' from a position - since my positions are based
on the evidence.
>No one has to guess where I stand on any issue I discuss
>on these boards.
Yep... you're willing to lie almost non-stop - and you're unwilling to take any
citation that proves you in error.
And fighting strawmen is your strength.
>That certainly could not be said about Holmes. He is
>nothing but a lying, gutless, dickless, toothless, round-mouthed piece
>of shit.
Ad hominem merely proves that you can't debate me on the facts. I suspect that
you don't even realize what damage you cause yourself in credibility when you
engage in such.
bigdog
> In article <1187519193.949160.34...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every post you make proves every allegation I have made about you.
Keep up the good work, chickenshit.
Ben Holmes
>Keep up the good work, chickenshit.
How sad... you've finally degenerated into the troll category.
You never *could* respond to the points I made, now you have nothing left but
anonymous vulgar insults.
Plonk!
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187519193....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> bigdog writes like an old song>>> "Ramblin Rose".
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The geriatric crowd weighs in. Next thing you know, tomnln will be
posting, "I've fallen, and I can't get up".
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
You're a Felon Supporter
You're a Assassin Supporter
You're an American Enemy Supporter
You're Anti-American Truth
You're an Anti-Justice Supporter
You're an Anti-Adverdsary Supporter.
And, you're Ugly TOO.
You won't even address your own evidence/testimony>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187661133.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> I keep running up & down your back with evidence/testimony Felon Supporter.
>
>
> You're a Felon Supporter
> You're a Assassin Supporter
> You're an American Enemy Supporter
> You're Anti-American Truth
> You're an Anti-Justice Supporter
> You're an Anti-Adverdsary Supporter.
>
> And, you're Ugly TOO.
>
> You won't even address your own evidence/testimony>>>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I've told you before, none of your web pages are evidence. Just
collection of irrelevant, stale, long ago debunked arguments. Nobody
but you gives a shit about them.
bigdog
>
>
> You're a Felon Supporter
> You're a Assassin Supporter
> You're an American Enemy Supporter
> You're Anti-American Truth
> You're an Anti-Justice Supporter
> You're an Anti-Adverdsary Supporter.
>
> And, you're Ugly TOO.
>
I don't see any blue ribbons hanging from your nose.
justm...@gmail.com
> On Aug 20, 11:11 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> I keep running up & down your back with evidence/testimony Felon Supporter.
>
>
> > You're a Felon Supporter
> > You're a Assassin Supporter
> > You're an American Enemy Supporter
> > You're Anti-American Truth
> > You're an Anti-Justice Supporter
> > You're an Anti-Adverdsary Supporter.
>
> You're an Athletic Supporter
>
> > And, you're Ugly TOO.
>
> I don't see any blue ribbons hanging from your nose.
And you're a moron Rossely. You have this need to keep proving it to
everyone. We've known for a longggg time....you win and Healy is
second place.
tomnln
bigdog rejects his own evidence/testimony.
bigdog Admits the WCR is a LIE
bigdog Admits the WC members are Criminals.
bigdog wrote>>>
"As I've told you before, none of your web pages are evidence. Just
collection of irrelevant, stale, long ago debunked arguments. Nobody
but you gives a shit about them."
Those web pages ARE evidence.
They all come from YOUR 26 Volumes.
They are Warren Commission arguements which were "Debunked".
Thanks David.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187691438.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Rinky-Dink.
As I've told you before, none of your web pages are evidence. Just
collection of irrelevant, stale, long ago debunked arguments. Nobody
but you gives a shit about them.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187691585.0...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
evidence/testimony>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187692166.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...