Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #2 - Refuted.

[judos...@gmail.com]

(2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.

No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment, as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.

It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."

But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/

So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.

As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints... So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.

We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier, whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.

It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him – but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.

And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.

Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.

What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

> No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment,

His landlady said there were.

> as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.

Is that what they show?

> It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
>
> But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)

As usual a conspiracy hobbyists asserts more than the evidence supports.

If there were curtain rods up Friday why would they be putting curtain rods up on Saturday?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/
>
> So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.
>
> As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints...

How are they connected to Oswald?

> So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
>
> Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.

You offer evidence that Truly said there were no curtain rods found in the TSBD as evidence there were curtain rods found in the TSBD?

> We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier,

Who said that Oswald told him he had curtain rods in the big sack Frazier said he saw Oswald carrying. So Oswald went to the place the rifle was kept, Oswald was seen transporting a "big sack" to work and then his rifle was found there, ans was determined to have been used to kill Kennedy. And conspiracy retards still cannot figure out this simple case.

> whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.

Yes, Oswald told 100% of the people who he talked about what the package contained that it was curtain rods.

> It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him –

What have you produced that makes "the chance are quite good" that Frazier lied about this? Conspiracy hobbyist figuring is worthless. Frazier repeated this story time and time again over the years. Doesn`t it make sense that if he lied he would just decline to talk about it?

> but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.
>
> And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.
>
> Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".

Of course they gain strength collectively. Which is why you retards cannot walk through the evidence and put a contending explanation on the table for consideration. After dozens of "lied", "faked", "coerced", "suppressed" claims it would be evident that you were just playing silly games with no interest in the truth.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
>
> What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.

The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.

But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.

> > No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment,
>
> His landlady said there were.

The photos show that there weren't.

The fingerprinted curtain rods demonstrate that there were hidden issues in this case that you can't account for.

Merely pointing out a discrepancy in the evidence isn't going to prove your case.

> > as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.
>
> Is that what they show?

Gutless coward that you are, you refuse to offer any other explanation.

Why is that, "Bud?"

> > It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
> >
> > But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
>
> As usual a conspiracy hobbyists asserts more than the evidence supports.
>
> If there were curtain rods up Friday why would they be putting curtain rods up on Saturday?

That's *YOUR* problem to solve.

I don't accept that there were curtain rods already there on Friday. YOU have to explain the facts...

My explanation clearly fits the facts.

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/
> >
> > So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.
> >
> > As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints...
>
> How are they connected to Oswald?

Only a moron would ask such a question.

Are you a moron, "Bud?"

> > So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
> >
> > Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.
>
> You offer evidence that Truly said there were no curtain rods found in the TSBD as evidence there were curtain rods found in the TSBD?

Clearly, another example of your illiteracy. I can't help you... this is something you should have learned in Kindergarten.

> > We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier,
>
> Who said that Oswald told him he had curtain rods in the big sack Frazier said he saw Oswald carrying. So Oswald went to the place the rifle was kept, Oswald was seen transporting a "big sack" to work and then his rifle was found there, ans was determined to have been used to kill Kennedy. And conspiracy retards still cannot figure out this simple case.

A well-stated synopsis of the theory first stated by the Warren Commission.

One that cannot be supported by you with citations to the evidence.

> > whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.
>
> Yes, Oswald told 100% of the people who he talked about what the package contained that it was curtain rods.

Speculation not supported with any evidence whatsoever.

> > It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him –
>
> What have you produced that makes "the chance are quite good" that Frazier lied about this?

The photos of the fingerprinted curtain rods at the Dallas PD website, the photos of the curtain rods being put up in Oswald's room on Saturday.

PLEASE learn to read...

> Conspiracy hobbyist figuring is worthless. Frazier repeated this story time and time again over the years. Doesn`t it make sense that if he lied he would just decline to talk about it?

Nope. History is full of people who become convinced that an original lie is really true.

"When you tell a lie often enough, you become unable to distinguish it from the truth." - Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist.

> > but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.

Dead silence from "Bud."

> > And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.
> >
> > Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".
>
> Of course they gain strength collectively. Which is why you retards cannot walk through the evidence and put a contending explanation on the table for consideration. After dozens of "lied", "faked", "coerced", "suppressed" claims it would be evident that you were just playing silly games with no interest in the truth.

You're lying again, "Bud."

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> >
> > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> >
> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
>
>
> Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
>
> The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
>
> But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.

So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments and removing content that he used to support his arguments. This is what honesty looks like to a conspiracy retard.

>
>
> > > No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment,
> >
> > His landlady said there were.
>
> The photos show that there weren't.

Why haven`t you linked to the photos of the room on the 22nd that show no curtain rods?

> The fingerprinted curtain rods demonstrate that there were hidden issues in this case that you can't account for.

Unknown doesn`t translate to sinister or significant.

> Merely pointing out a discrepancy in the evidence isn't going to prove your case.
>
>
> > > as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.
> >
> > Is that what they show?
>
>
> Gutless coward that you are, you refuse to offer any other explanation.

Shifting the burden again.

> Why is that, "Bud?"
>
>
> > > It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
> > >
> > > But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
> >
> > As usual a conspiracy hobbyists asserts more than the evidence supports.
> >
> > If there were curtain rods up Friday why would they be putting curtain rods up on Saturday?
>
> That's *YOUR* problem to solve.
>
> I don't accept that there were curtain rods already there on Friday. YOU have to explain the facts...
>
> My explanation clearly fits the facts.


> > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/
> > >
> > > So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.
> > >
> > > As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints...
> >
> > How are they connected to Oswald?
>
>
> Only a moron would ask such a question.

Is this you admitting you can make no connection?

> Are you a moron, "Bud?"
>
>
> > > So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
> > >
> > > Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.
> >
> > You offer evidence that Truly said there were no curtain rods found in the TSBD as evidence there were curtain rods found in the TSBD?
>
>
> Clearly, another example of your illiteracy. I can't help you... this is something you should have learned in Kindergarten.

Did Truly say curtain rods were found in the TSBD or not? You seemed to be indicating he had not. And in some kind of conspiracy hobbyists logic this was held up as support that curtain rods were found.

>
> > > We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier,
> >
> > Who said that Oswald told him he had curtain rods in the big sack Frazier said he saw Oswald carrying. So Oswald went to the place the rifle was kept, Oswald was seen transporting a "big sack" to work and then his rifle was found there, ans was determined to have been used to kill Kennedy. And conspiracy retards still cannot figure out this simple case.
>
>
> A well-stated synopsis of the theory first stated by the Warren Commission.

Thank you.

> One that cannot be supported by you with citations to the evidence.

What are you disputing?

>
> > > whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.
> >
> > Yes, Oswald told 100% of the people who he talked about what the package contained that it was curtain rods.
>
>
> Speculation not supported with any evidence whatsoever.

Frazier`s affidavit and testimony aren`t evidence?

>
> > > It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him –
> >

> > What have you produced that makes "the chances are quite good" that Frazier lied about this?

>
> The photos of the fingerprinted curtain rods at the Dallas PD website, the photos of the curtain rods being put up in Oswald's room on Saturday.
>
> PLEASE learn to read...

How do these have any bearing on the truthfulness of Frazier`s words? Do you think he knew whether Oswald had curtain rods in his room?

>
> > Conspiracy hobbyist figuring is worthless. Frazier repeated this story time and time again over the years. Doesn`t it make sense that if he lied he would just decline to talk about it?
>
>
> Nope. History is full of people who become convinced that an original lie is really true.

So your explanation is that Frazier deluded himself into thinking that Oswald told him that the sack contained curtain rods. And your idea that the authorities threatened him to say this very thing didn`t stick out in his mind?

> "When you tell a lie often enough, you become unable to distinguish it from the truth." - Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist.
>
>
> > > but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.
>
>
> Dead silence from "Bud."

I didn`t contest that they were never explained. This is why they are useless as evidence. Since they are useless as evidence a conspiracy retard has decided to use them. Aren`t you glad you asked?

> > > And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.
> > >
> > > Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".
> >
> > Of course they gain strength collectively. Which is why you retards cannot walk through the evidence and put a contending explanation on the table for consideration. After dozens of "lied", "faked", "coerced", "suppressed" claims it would be evident that you were just playing silly games with no interest in the truth.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Put an explanation of what is known and in evidence in the assassination on the table for consideration and prove me wrong.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:46:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> > >
> > > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> > >
> > > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
> >
> >
> > Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
> >
> > The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
> >
> > But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.
>
> So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments

Nope. I'm quoting the list AS IT WAS WRITTEN by a believer...

I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion.

> and removing content that he used to support his arguments.

You're lying.

You see, if you were telling the truth, your implication that Bugliosi's full explanation would negate my refutation would be easy to show...

JUST QUOTE HIS FULL EXPLANATION.

But you're too yellow, and too dishonest to do so.

And now that you know it was a believer who shortened Bugliosi's words, are you going to correctly denigrate him?

> This is what honesty looks like to a conspiracy retard.

The honest party will be shown by your response.

> > > > No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment,
> > >
> > > His landlady said there were.
> >
> > The photos show that there weren't.
>
> Why haven`t you linked to the photos of the room on the 22nd that show no curtain rods?

Tut tut tut... I linked to the photos of the curtain rods being installed in the room.

> > The fingerprinted curtain rods demonstrate that there were hidden issues in this case that you can't account for.
>
> Unknown doesn`t translate to sinister or significant.

That's your justification for years of lying by believers???

Surely you can do better than that.

> > Merely pointing out a discrepancy in the evidence isn't going to prove your case.
> >
> >
> > > > as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.
> > >
> > > Is that what they show?
> >
> >
> > Gutless coward that you are, you refuse to offer any other explanation.
>
> Shifting the burden again.

Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

> > Why is that, "Bud?"
> >
> >
> > > > It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
> > > >
> > > > But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
> > >
> > > As usual a conspiracy hobbyists asserts more than the evidence supports.
> > >
> > > If there were curtain rods up Friday why would they be putting curtain rods up on Saturday?
> >
> > That's *YOUR* problem to solve.
> >
> > I don't accept that there were curtain rods already there on Friday. YOU have to explain the facts...
> >
> > My explanation clearly fits the facts.
>
>
> > > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/
> > > >
> > > > So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.
> > > >
> > > > As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints...
> > >
> > > How are they connected to Oswald?
> >
> >
> > Only a moron would ask such a question.
>
> Is this you admitting you can make no connection?

Can't read, either; I see.

> > Are you a moron, "Bud?"
> >
> >
> > > > So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
> > > >
> > > > Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.
> > >
> > > You offer evidence that Truly said there were no curtain rods found in the TSBD as evidence there were curtain rods found in the TSBD?
> >
> >
> > Clearly, another example of your illiteracy. I can't help you... this is something you should have learned in Kindergarten.
>
> Did Truly say curtain rods were found in the TSBD or not? You seemed to be indicating he had not. And in some kind of conspiracy hobbyists logic this was held up as support that curtain rods were found.

A debate is not a debate when one side keeps running ...

Curtain rods were PROVABLY found.

They were in evidence, and fingerprinted.

You're a liar to suggest otherwise.

> > > > We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier,
> > >
> > > Who said that Oswald told him he had curtain rods in the big sack Frazier said he saw Oswald carrying. So Oswald went to the place the rifle was kept, Oswald was seen transporting a "big sack" to work and then his rifle was found there, ans was determined to have been used to kill Kennedy. And conspiracy retards still cannot figure out this simple case.
> >
> >
> > A well-stated synopsis of the theory first stated by the Warren Commission.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > One that cannot be supported by you with citations to the evidence.
>
> What are you disputing?

You won't defend it anyway...

> > > > whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.
> > >
> > > Yes, Oswald told 100% of the people who he talked about what the package contained that it was curtain rods.
> >
> >
> > Speculation not supported with any evidence whatsoever.
>
> Frazier`s affidavit and testimony aren`t evidence?

You don't believe *any* eyewitness... so my statement is correct.

> > > > It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him –
> > >
> > > What have you produced that makes "the chances are quite good" that Frazier lied about this?
> >
> > The photos of the fingerprinted curtain rods at the Dallas PD website, the photos of the curtain rods being put up in Oswald's room on Saturday.
> >
> > PLEASE learn to read...
>
> How do these have any bearing on the truthfulness of Frazier`s words? Do you think he knew whether Oswald had curtain rods in his room?

Coward, aren't you "Bud?"

You really think you can keep asking questions, and never answering them?

If so, we can add "stupid" to your description.

> > > Conspiracy hobbyist figuring is worthless. Frazier repeated this story time and time again over the years. Doesn`t it make sense that if he lied he would just decline to talk about it?
> >
> >
> > Nope. History is full of people who become convinced that an original lie is really true.
>
> So your explanation is that Frazier deluded himself into thinking that Oswald told him that the sack contained curtain rods. And your idea that the authorities threatened him to say this very thing didn`t stick out in his mind?

Feel free to quote what I said... if you insist on putting words in my mouth, I'll be happy to do the same to you.

> > "When you tell a lie often enough, you become unable to distinguish it from the truth." - Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist.

Dead silence after I cited for my answer...

> > > > but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.
> >
> >
> > Dead silence from "Bud."
>
> I didn`t contest that they were never explained.

You implied above that they didn't exist.

Good of you to toss a little truth in with your massive lies...

> This is why they are useless as evidence. Since they are useless as evidence a conspiracy retard has decided to use them. Aren`t you glad you asked?

They are "useless" as evidence only to the Warren Commission.

Since they demolish a key tenet of the Commission's theory.

> > > > And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.
> > > >
> > > > Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".
> > >
> > > Of course they gain strength collectively. Which is why you retards cannot walk through the evidence and put a contending explanation on the table for consideration. After dozens of "lied", "faked", "coerced", "suppressed" claims it would be evident that you were just playing silly games with no interest in the truth.
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Put an explanation of what is known and in evidence in the assassination on the table for consideration and prove me wrong.

Certainly. Just as soon as you do.

I'll continue refuting Bugliosi's assertions in the meantime.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24:05 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:46:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> > > >
> > > > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
> > >
> > > The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
> > >
> > > But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.
> >
> > So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments
>
>
> Nope. I'm quoting the list AS IT WAS WRITTEN by a believer...
>
> I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion.

Why not use Bugliosi`s actual words?

> > and removing content that he used to support his arguments.
>
> You're lying.
>
> You see, if you were telling the truth, your implication that Bugliosi's full explanation would negate my refutation would be easy to show...

I made no implication. I stated right out that you removed content that Bugliosi used to support his claim. And you did, didn`t you?

> JUST QUOTE HIS FULL EXPLANATION.
>
> But you're too yellow, and too dishonest to do so.

You keep making demands of me, I`m doing what I`m doing. Pointing out flaws in your thinking, methodology, approach, honesty, ect.

> And now that you know it was a believer who shortened Bugliosi's words, are you going to correctly denigrate him?

This is your dog and pony show. Stop trying to misdirect everywhere else when you get your tail stuck in a crack.

>
> > This is what honesty looks like to a conspiracy retard.
>
>
> The honest party will be shown by your response.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment,
> > > >
> > > > His landlady said there were.
> > >
> > > The photos show that there weren't.
> >
> > Why haven`t you linked to the photos of the room on the 22nd that show no curtain rods?
>
>
> Tut tut tut... I linked to the photos of the curtain rods being installed in the room.

You showed some activity involving the curtain rods on Saturday. How does this show the landlady was wrong about there being curtain rods up the previous day?

>
>
> > > The fingerprinted curtain rods demonstrate that there were hidden issues in this case that you can't account for.
> >
> > Unknown doesn`t translate to sinister or significant.
>
>
> That's your justification for years of lying by believers???

You have evidence you can go nowhere with and you blame that on others. What else is new?

> Surely you can do better than that.
>
>
> > > Merely pointing out a discrepancy in the evidence isn't going to prove your case.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.
> > > >
> > > > Is that what they show?
> > >
> > >
> > > Gutless coward that you are, you refuse to offer any other explanation.
> >
> > Shifting the burden again.
>
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

Not my fault you have nothing. If you had something you wouldn`t keep begging for my input.

>
> > > Why is that, "Bud?"
> > >
> > >
> > > > > It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
> > > > >
> > > > > But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
> > > >
> > > > As usual a conspiracy hobbyists asserts more than the evidence supports.
> > > >
> > > > If there were curtain rods up Friday why would they be putting curtain rods up on Saturday?
> > >
> > > That's *YOUR* problem to solve.
> > >
> > > I don't accept that there were curtain rods already there on Friday. YOU have to explain the facts...
> > >
> > > My explanation clearly fits the facts.
> >
> >
> > > > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Lou%20Photos%20at%20Beckley%20Street%20Apartment/
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's the story? Bugliosi is certainly unwilling to go there.
> > > > >
> > > > > As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints...
> > > >
> > > > How are they connected to Oswald?
> > >
> > >
> > > Only a moron would ask such a question.
> >
> > Is this you admitting you can make no connection?
>
>
> Can't read, either; I see.

Well enough to tell you`ve made no connection between those curtain rods and Oswald.

>
>
> > > Are you a moron, "Bud?"
> > >
> > >
> > > > > So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
> > > > >
> > > > > Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. He cites Roy Truly – who was asked nearly a year later, on Sep 1st 1964 – but the DPD had in its files curtain rods that had been dusted for prints. And as Roffman has pointed out: Rankin ordered that Truly be interviewed "in order to establish that no curtain rods were found in the [Depository] following the assassination." The Warren Commission wasn't interested in finding the curtain rods that are provably involved in this case... Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.
> > > >
> > > > You offer evidence that Truly said there were no curtain rods found in the TSBD as evidence there were curtain rods found in the TSBD?
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly, another example of your illiteracy. I can't help you... this is something you should have learned in Kindergarten.
> >
> > Did Truly say curtain rods were found in the TSBD or not? You seemed to be indicating he had not. And in some kind of conspiracy hobbyists logic this was held up as support that curtain rods were found.
>
>
> A debate is not a debate when one side keeps running ...

This is not a debate, idiot. You set about to refute Bugliosi.

> Curtain rods were PROVABLY found.

Where?

> They were in evidence, and fingerprinted.
>
> You're a liar to suggest otherwise.

What exactly did I suggest?

>
> > > > > We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, (that he denied this 'curtain rod' story) and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier,
> > > >
> > > > Who said that Oswald told him he had curtain rods in the big sack Frazier said he saw Oswald carrying. So Oswald went to the place the rifle was kept, Oswald was seen transporting a "big sack" to work and then his rifle was found there, ans was determined to have been used to kill Kennedy. And conspiracy retards still cannot figure out this simple case.
> > >
> > >
> > > A well-stated synopsis of the theory first stated by the Warren Commission.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > One that cannot be supported by you with citations to the evidence.
> >
> > What are you disputing?
>
>
>
> You won't defend it anyway...

<snicker?

>
>
> > > > > whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that. You won't hear a believer stating that Frazier is the ONLY person who made the claim that Oswald said anything about curtain rods.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Oswald told 100% of the people who he talked about what the package contained that it was curtain rods.
> > >
> > >
> > > Speculation not supported with any evidence whatsoever.
> >
> > Frazier`s affidavit and testimony aren`t evidence?
>
>
> You don't believe *any* eyewitness... so my statement is correct.

Frazier`s affidavit and testimony aren`t "any evidence whatsoever" to you?

>
> > > > > It's long been a factoid passed around by Warren Commission Believers that there weren't any curtain rods to be found... there certainly were. Chances are quite good that Oswald never said what Frazier ALONE attributed to him –
> > > >
> > > > What have you produced that makes "the chances are quite good" that Frazier lied about this?
> > >
> > > The photos of the fingerprinted curtain rods at the Dallas PD website, the photos of the curtain rods being put up in Oswald's room on Saturday.
> > >
> > > PLEASE learn to read...
> >
> > How do these have any bearing on the truthfulness of Frazier`s words? Do you think he knew whether Oswald had curtain rods in his room?
>
>
> Coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
> You really think you can keep asking questions, and never answering them?

The questions I am asking reflect directly to your premise. You claimed Frazier was lying when he said that Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods. We are examining *your* ideas, I didn`t start this thread.

> If so, we can add "stupid" to your description.
>
> > > > Conspiracy hobbyist figuring is worthless. Frazier repeated this story time and time again over the years. Doesn`t it make sense that if he lied he would just decline to talk about it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. History is full of people who become convinced that an original lie is really true.
> >
> > So your explanation is that Frazier deluded himself into thinking that Oswald told him that the sack contained curtain rods. And your idea that the authorities threatened him to say this very thing didn`t stick out in his mind?
>
>
> Feel free to quote what I said... if you insist on putting words in my mouth, I'll be happy to do the same to you.

Another conspiracy retard trick, they adopt what seems to be a position but when it is challenged they retreat and claim it wasn`t their poistion at all. Why did you say "History is full of people who become convinced that an original lie is really true." if you weren`t applying this to the person being discussed, Frazier?

>
>
> > > "When you tell a lie often enough, you become unable to distinguish it from the truth." - Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist.
>
>
> Dead silence after I cited for my answer...

It assumes what you haven`t established, that Frazier was lying, for one. And it ignores the fact that you position is that Frazier was coerced by the authorities in a murder case to lie. A bit more substantial than lying about ones age.

>
>
> > > > > but the curtain rods that WERE found and fingerprinted have never been explained.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dead silence from "Bud."
> >
> > I didn`t contest that they were never explained.
>
> You implied above that they didn't exist.

Never. I`ve heard of them mentioned before over the years.

> Good of you to toss a little truth in with your massive lies...

If they weren`t explained isn`t that a failure by your side? I mean you guys are the ones that want to make something of them.

>
> > This is why they are useless as evidence. Since they are useless as evidence a conspiracy retard has decided to use them. Aren`t you glad you asked?
>
>
> They are "useless" as evidence only to the Warren Commission.
>
> Since they demolish a key tenet of the Commission's theory.

Empty claim.

>
> > > > > And what is basically a dispute between two men as to what was actually said, can hardly be used as evidence of murder. The presumption that Frazier was telling the absolute truth – therefore Oswald is guilty of a lie, and thus would murder the President, simply doesn't bear any weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor do bits of 'evidence' such as this, which individually fall apart, suddenly gain force "collectively".
> > > >
> > > > Of course they gain strength collectively. Which is why you retards cannot walk through the evidence and put a contending explanation on the table for consideration. After dozens of "lied", "faked", "coerced", "suppressed" claims it would be evident that you were just playing silly games with no interest in the truth.
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Put an explanation of what is known and in evidence in the assassination on the table for consideration and prove me wrong.
>
> Certainly. Just as soon as you do.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html

Your turn.

> I'll continue refuting Bugliosi's assertions in the meantime.

When do you plan on starting?

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24:05 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:46:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
> > > >
> > > > The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
> > > >
> > > > But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.
> > >
> > > So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments
> >
> >
> > Nope. I'm quoting the list AS IT WAS WRITTEN by a believer...
> >
> > I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion.
>
> Why not use Bugliosi`s actual words?

Ask the believer who posted the list I responded to.

> > > and removing content that he used to support his arguments.
> >
> > You're lying.
> >
> > You see, if you were telling the truth, your implication that Bugliosi's full explanation would negate my refutation would be easy to show...
>
> I made no implication. I stated right out that you removed content that Bugliosi used to support his claim. And you did, didn`t you?

I've already explained otherwise...

Just a gutless liar, aren't you?

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 7:23:57 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24:05 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:46:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
> > > > >
> > > > > The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
> > > > >
> > > > > But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.
> > > >
> > > > So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. I'm quoting the list AS IT WAS WRITTEN by a believer...
> > >
> > > I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion.
> >
> > Why not use Bugliosi`s actual words?
>
>
> Ask the believer who posted the list I responded to.

Why not take responsibility for your own actions?

>
> > > > and removing content that he used to support his arguments.
> > >
> > > You're lying.
> > >
> > > You see, if you were telling the truth, your implication that Bugliosi's full explanation would negate my refutation would be easy to show...
> >
> > I made no implication. I stated right out that you removed content that Bugliosi used to support his claim. And you did, didn`t you?
>
>
> I've already explained otherwise...

You lied. You didn`t include that the landlady said there were already curtain rods in Oswald`s room, did you? That was something that Bugliosi used in support of his idea, wasn`t it?

> Just a gutless liar, aren't you?

If you want to refute Bugliosi you have to address what the man actually said.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 7:23:57 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24:05 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:46:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:04:35 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope... don't recall ever going to that forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The list originally appeared on McAdam's censored forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But your question is meaningless. The list is accurate, if shortened. I've retained the spirit of each assertion by checking the original in his book, which you can certainly read.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you are paraphrasing Bugliosi`s arguments
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I'm quoting the list AS IT WAS WRITTEN by a believer...
> > > >
> > > > I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion.
> > >
> > > Why not use Bugliosi`s actual words?
> >
> >
> > Ask the believer who posted the list I responded to.
>
> Why not take responsibility for your own actions?

I do.

You're attempting to make me take the blame for the originator of the list.

Quite despicable, aren't you?

[Bud]

<snicker> You`re the one misrepresenting a dead guy.

[judos...@gmail.com]

You're lying again, "Bud"...

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
>
> What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Interestingly, "Bud" admits that he frequents the REAL source of these quotes from Bugliosi. (Where the wording is precisely the same...)

What you'll NEVER see are the comments that have been directed at me - pointed to the believer who originally posted the list: "BT George".

This demonstrates just how dishonest "Bud" is.

What a COWARD!!!

[Bud]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:26:56 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:15:56 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
> >
> > What source are you working from? I found this list of Vincent Bugliosi`s 53 pieces of evidence, and what you produced does not appear in #2...
> >
> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
>
> Interestingly, "Bud" admits that he frequents the REAL source of these quotes from Bugliosi. (Where the wording is precisely the same...)

Where did I use the word "real" in relation to this information, reatrd. I merely asked why yours differed from it.

> What you'll NEVER see are the comments that have been directed at me - pointed to the believer who originally posted the list: "BT George".

He did not bring this here. Take responsibility for your own actions.

> This demonstrates just how dishonest "Bud" is.
>
> What a COWARD!!!

<snicker> What a retard.

[Bud]

Am I? Did you include all the information Bugliosi included in support of his contentions?

But that isn`t the worst of it. You said this...

"I checked each quote to ensure that it was accurately reflecting Bugliosi's actual assertion."

It seems to me you had someone`s characterization of Bugliosi`s assertions and had Bugliosi`s *actual assertions* and you chose to address the former rather than the latter. Why didn`t you just address what Bugliosi actually said?

[Ben Holmes]

Since you refuse to document your claim - seems that you're just blowing hot air.

You can't demonstrate that I've twisted anything Bugliosi was saying.

And you can't refute my refutations...

[Bud]

You were the one who said what you were addressing was reflective of Bugliosi`s words. I was just wondering why you just didn`t address his actual words.

> And you can't refute my refutations...

You`re nuts, you know that, right?

[Jason Burke]

Seriously? The Jackass needs to work up to nuts.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."

But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)

So what's the story?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's the story (which Ben is either unaware or, or he just wants to ignore):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html

The crux of the story is: A policeman bent and damaged the curtain rod that was in LHO's room on 11/22, and therefore the landlady had to put up a new rod the next day (Nov. 23). See Commission Document #705 to confirm these facts.

And, as usual, Vincent Bugliosi does, indeed, talk about these matters in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History". No lies, just the raw facts. (See Pages 407 and 408 of Endnotes in Vince's book, shown in the image below, which also covers the "dusted for prints" topic relating to some curtain rods as well.)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png

[Ben Holmes]

You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.

Why are you afraid to support your claim?

It would be incredibly easy - if I were actually misrepresenting Bugliosi's view... all you'd have to do is QUOTE HIS WORDS.

> > And you can't refute my refutations...
>
> You`re nuts, you know that, right?

You're a dishonest coward... but I'm quite sure you know that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 6:30:21 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> It's interesting that Bugliosi goes on to state: "Indeed, Allen Grant, a photographer for Life magazine, took a photo of Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination, and it clearly shows the curtain rods that were already in his room."
>
> But he ALSO certainly knows about the photos taken the following morning, showing curtains being installed. (using a hammer to do it!)
>
> So what's the story?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Here's the story (which Ben is either unaware or, or he just wants to ignore):

Tell the truth, David... how many times have you actually caught me not knowing some bit of evidence? (and, knowing you to be a liar, you'd better be able to provide a citation.)

On the other hand, you've been schooled by me on issues... take, for example, the lie that Bugliosi told about the "ragged" throat wound...

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>
> The crux of the story is: A policeman bent and damaged the curtain rod that was in LHO's room on 11/22, and therefore the landlady had to put up a new rod the next day (Nov. 23). See Commission Document #705 to confirm these facts.

Ever put up a curtain rod?

Your assertion doesn't hold water... a hammer isn't needed to replace a "bent" curtain rod.

> And, as usual, Vincent Bugliosi does, indeed, talk about these matters in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History". No lies, just the raw facts. (See Pages 407 and 408 of Endnotes in Vince's book, shown in the image below, which also covers the "dusted for prints" topic relating to some curtain rods as well.)

Tell us David, have believers ever asserted that there aren't any "curtain rods" in this case?

Perhaps you can also correct "Bud" and tell him if believers ever asserted that Connally showed a "delayed reaction" to the SBT.

Or you can run away, as you frequently do.

> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png

[David Von Pein]

Boy, what a fantastic job of "dodging the facts" that was, Ben. Congrats.

And I guess you must think both Mr. and Mrs. A.C. Johnson were liars when they both testified that Oswald's room already had curtain rods when LHO lived there, eh?

[Bud]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:08:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:01:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > You can't demonstrate that I've twisted anything Bugliosi was saying.
> >
> > You were the one who said what you were addressing was reflective of Bugliosi`s words. I was just wondering why you just didn`t address his actual words.
>
> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.

I asked why what you were using differed from another version. When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.

> Why are you afraid to support your claim?

You supported my claim when you said "reflecting". I can give some synopsis of you arguments that I think are reflective of them that you don`t agree with, right? I would be better off addressing what you actually say, right?

> It would be incredibly easy - if I were actually misrepresenting Bugliosi's view... all you'd have to do is QUOTE HIS WORDS.
>
>
> > > And you can't refute my refutations...
> >
> > You`re nuts, you know that, right?
>
> You're a dishonest coward... but I'm quite sure you know that.

Perhaps you are unaware.

[Ben Holmes]

You've run from that hammer too, I see.

The "facts" don't add up - you know it, I know it.

You *STILL* refuse to explain the existence of those fingerprinted curtain rods... that's the elephant in the room.

And if you're too cowardly to actually ADDRESS my points, then you *should* be honest enough not to comment in general.

[Bud]

If some of the nails in the brackets that hold the curtain rods pulled out a hammer would be used to hammer them back in. Duh!

> The "facts" don't add up - you know it, I know it.

The facts don`t support your silly ideas so the facts become suspect and not your silly ideas.

> You *STILL* refuse to explain the existence of those fingerprinted curtain rods... that's the elephant in the room.

If you want to use them as supportive evidence you need to answer the questions about them. Not just offer explanations, mind you.

[Ben Holmes]

Far more likely that they were installing the curtain rods that had been found and fingerprinted.

You *STILL* refuse to explain those.

You lose!

[Bud]

How is that more likely? The curtain rods are never shown in the photos you produced to be down.

> You *STILL* refuse to explain those.

I have no ideas that require them to be explained. I`m not using them is support of any premise.

> You lose!

<snicker> There you have it folks. If this doesn`t show Ben to be retarded I don`t know what would.

[David Von Pein]

Huh? Are you referring to Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Those are the only other "curtain rods" I know of in this case. And those were Ruth Paine's rods. We know that for a fact. They came from her garage. They were photographed and appear in WC Volume 21 here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm

Here's the argument I had with Ben about this exact topic in August of 2015:


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The date of CE 2640 is the most incriminating feature. The Warren Commission had long ago finished their "investigation" -- and was only wrapping up 'loose ends' at this point.

The very idea that it would be "customary" to notify Mr. Truly if curtain rods were found is so ridiculous, I'm quite amazed that someone would put that in a report.

You have to be foolish indeed to rely on a document like CE 2640 -- and DVP has clearly placed himself in that category.

What you WON'T hear from DVP is an admission that there ARE curtain rods that were found, and fingerprinted in this case... (or a credible explanation for that fact).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The curtain rods that Ben Holmes seems to believe were found in the TSBD were actually the two lightweight curtain rods that were found wrapped up in paper in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276).

No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository and Ben Holmes knows it.

Also see Ruth Paine's testimony (at my webpage here) concerning the curtain rods (as they were being unwrapped--on the record--during her Warren Commission session which was taking place in her very own garage).


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're lying again, Davey...

For YEARS believers have hammered critics with the false story that no curtain rods had ever been found -- yet now we have PROOF that it's been a lie.

Ruth Paine was very much involved in framing Oswald. She's on a level of trustworthiness not very far from Marina.

But tell us Davey -- ARE YOU ACTUALLY ADMITTING THAT CURTAIN RODS WERE FOUND IN THIS CASE, AND FINGERPRINTED?

And can you offer any credible explanation for why curtain rods owned by Ruth Paine needed to be fingerprinted?

Or why the Warren Commission was so desperate to get it on the record that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never denied that some curtain rods were found in Ruth Paine's garage. Why would I deny that FACT? It's a fact.

But by laughing and ridiculing Commission Exhibit No. 2640, you are implying that some rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. And that's just not so.

You wouldn't be gilding the lily just a touch, would you now, Ben?

As for fingerprinting Paine's rods --- big deal. If that is, indeed, true (and I've never been interested enough to verify whether it is true or not, but maybe it is), the authorities no doubt wanted to see if Oswald's prints might show up on those curtain rods (seeing as how the rods WERE in Ruth Paine's garage, and Lee Oswald did spend his last night of freedom in Ruth's house and had access to those rods the same day that he told fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier the "curtain rod" story).

So it makes perfect sense to me for the police (or the FBI) to want to fingerprint those rods. If they hadn't done so, I can hear the conspiracy theorists balking about how lax the authorities were. (The cops can't win for losing, can they, Ben?)

Maybe you'd better move on to your next paper-thin argument to try and make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Ben. Because this "curtain rod" thing is getting embarrassing for you.

David Von Pein
August 29-30, 2015

[David Von Pein]

FYI / FWIW....

Regarding the topic of "Oswald's package", check out Addendum #2 at my webpage below. This might be brand-new to almost everybody here. It certainly caught me by surprise when David Lifton brought it up:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html

[Ben Holmes]

It's more likely because curtain rods were found, and fingerprinted.

You'd certainly be even more of a moron if you publicly asserted that the DPD went to Oswald's apartment, and fingerprinted the curtain rods that you claim were already in the room.

So you don't know what to do... you're faced with some 'found' curtain rods, but you don't know what to do with them.

I do.

They fit very nicely into a frame-up scenario. The DPD needed to find a way for Oswald to "bring" a rifle into the building.

Disappear the curtain rods, voila! Now everything works.

You will certainly continue to refuse to explain those curtain rods...

You're a coward.

> > You *STILL* refuse to explain those.
>
> I have no ideas that require them to be explained. I`m not using them is support of any premise.

You see? A coward...

> > You lose!
>
> <snicker> There you have it folks. If this doesn`t show Ben to be retarded I don`t know what would.

This demonstrates quite well your cowardice & dishonesty.

[Bud]

This might mean something in a world where what a retard felt was "more likely" actually meant something.

> You'd certainly be even more of a moron if you publicly asserted that the DPD went to Oswald's apartment, and fingerprinted the curtain rods that you claim were already in the room.
>
> So you don't know what to do... you're faced with some 'found' curtain rods, but you don't know what to do with them.
>
> I do.
>
> They fit very nicely into a frame-up scenario. The DPD needed to find a way for Oswald to "bring" a rifle into the building.
>
> Disappear the curtain rods, voila! Now everything works.
>
> You will certainly continue to refuse to explain those curtain rods...

I`m not using them in support of an idea, you are. You need to to firm this retard figuring up.

> You're a coward.
>
>
> > > You *STILL* refuse to explain those.
> >
> > I have no ideas that require them to be explained. I`m not using them is support of any premise.
>
>
> You see? A coward...

You playing the retard game of "if you don`t explain this to my satisfaction then my retard ideas are validated". Not sure what the formal name of thus fallacy is.

>
> > > You lose!
> >
> > <snicker> There you have it folks. If this doesn`t show Ben to be retarded I don`t know what would.
>
> This demonstrates quite well your cowardice & dishonesty.

I doubt you could demonstrate that was water was wet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> Huh? Are you referring to Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Those are the only other "curtain rods" I know of in this case. And those were Ruth Paine's rods. We know that for a fact. They came from her garage. They were photographed and appear in WC Volume 21 here:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm
>
> Here's the argument I had with Ben about this exact topic in August of 2015:
>
>
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> The date of CE 2640 is the most incriminating feature. The Warren Commission had long ago finished their "investigation" -- and was only wrapping up 'loose ends' at this point.
>
> The very idea that it would be "customary" to notify Mr. Truly if curtain rods were found is so ridiculous, I'm quite amazed that someone would put that in a report.
>
> You have to be foolish indeed to rely on a document like CE 2640 -- and DVP has clearly placed himself in that category.
>
> What you WON'T hear from DVP is an admission that there ARE curtain rods that were found, and fingerprinted in this case... (or a credible explanation for that fact).

Notice below that DVP didn't address most of this.

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> The curtain rods that Ben Holmes seems to believe were found in the TSBD were actually the two lightweight curtain rods that were found wrapped up in paper in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276).
>
> No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository and Ben Holmes knows it.

No citations, no nothing... merely DVP's speculation.

> Also see Ruth Paine's testimony (at my webpage here) concerning the curtain rods (as they were being unwrapped--on the record--during her Warren Commission session which was taking place in her very own garage).

The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> You're lying again, Davey...
>
> For YEARS believers have hammered critics with the false story that no curtain rods had ever been found -- yet now we have PROOF that it's been a lie.

Yep... still true, and DVP doesn't have the guts to admit the truth.

> Ruth Paine was very much involved in framing Oswald. She's on a level of trustworthiness not very far from Marina.

Still true, and unrefuted by DVP.

> But tell us Davey -- ARE YOU ACTUALLY ADMITTING THAT CURTAIN RODS WERE FOUND IN THIS CASE, AND FINGERPRINTED?
>
> And can you offer any credible explanation for why curtain rods owned by Ruth Paine needed to be fingerprinted?
>
> Or why the Warren Commission was so desperate to get it on the record that no curtain rods were found at the TSBD?

Notice that DVP simply avoids answering these legitimate questions...

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I've never denied that some curtain rods were found in Ruth Paine's garage. Why would I deny that FACT? It's a fact.

Let's see if you can deny that believers have long pointed to an absence of curtain rods in this case to help support their contention that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD...

> But by laughing and ridiculing Commission Exhibit No. 2640, you are implying that some rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. And that's just not so.

You won't, of course, offer ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, nor any citation... to support your naked assertion.

> You wouldn't be gilding the lily just a touch, would you now, Ben?
>
> As for fingerprinting Paine's rods --- big deal. If that is, indeed, true (and I've never been interested enough to verify whether it is true or not, but maybe it is),

This alone demonstrates the level of interest in the actual evidence by a believer...

It's not evidence that support's DVP's faith.

> the authorities no doubt wanted to see if Oswald's prints might show up on those curtain rods (seeing as how the rods WERE in Ruth Paine's garage, and Lee Oswald did spend his last night of freedom in Ruth's house and had access to those rods the same day that he told fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier the "curtain rod" story).

This makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER, if the curtain rods were in Ruth Paine's garage.

It makes a great deal of sense if they were found at the TSBD.


But go ahead, DVP... explain why anyone would bother fingerprinting curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage...

You won't, of course... you're just as much a coward as most other believers are.

> So it makes perfect sense to me for the police (or the FBI) to want to fingerprint those rods. If they hadn't done so, I can hear the conspiracy theorists balking about how lax the authorities were. (The cops can't win for losing, can they, Ben?)

No, it *doesn't* make any sense. Merely asserting that it does means absolutely nothing.

MAKE YOUR CASE... or run like the coward you are.

> Maybe you'd better move on to your next paper-thin argument to try and make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Ben. Because this "curtain rod" thing is getting embarrassing for you.
>
> David Von Pein
> August 29-30, 2015

My "paper-thin" arguments are so damaging to you ... that you absolutely refuse to defend Bugliosi's claims as I'm refuting them one by one.

Cat got your tongue???

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > Huh? Are you referring to Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Those are the only other "curtain rods" I know of in this case. And those were Ruth Paine's rods. We know that for a fact. They came from her garage. They were photographed and appear in WC Volume 21 here:
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm
> >
> > Here's the argument I had with Ben about this exact topic in August of 2015:
> >
> >
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > The date of CE 2640 is the most incriminating feature. The Warren Commission had long ago finished their "investigation" -- and was only wrapping up 'loose ends' at this point.
> >
> > The very idea that it would be "customary" to notify Mr. Truly if curtain rods were found is so ridiculous, I'm quite amazed that someone would put that in a report.
> >
> > You have to be foolish indeed to rely on a document like CE 2640 -- and DVP has clearly placed himself in that category.
> >
> > What you WON'T hear from DVP is an admission that there ARE curtain rods that were found, and fingerprinted in this case... (or a credible explanation for that fact).
>
>
> Notice below that DVP didn't address most of this.
>
>
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > The curtain rods that Ben Holmes seems to believe were found in the TSBD were actually the two lightweight curtain rods that were found wrapped up in paper in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276).
> >
> > No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository and Ben Holmes knows it.
>
>
> No citations, no nothing... merely DVP's speculation.
>
>
>
> > Also see Ruth Paine's testimony (at my webpage here) concerning the curtain rods (as they were being unwrapped--on the record--during her Warren Commission session which was taking place in her very own garage).
>
>
> The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.

It was her house. But notice that Ben feels if he doesn`t like evidence it somehow stops being evidence. So Ben calls for cites and evidence, he dismisses it out of hand when it is provided.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > Huh? Are you referring to Paine Exhibits 275 and 276? Those are the only other "curtain rods" I know of in this case. And those were Ruth Paine's rods. We know that for a fact. They came from her garage. They were photographed and appear in WC Volume 21 here:
> > >
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm
> > >
> > > Here's the argument I had with Ben about this exact topic in August of 2015:
> > >
> > >
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > The date of CE 2640 is the most incriminating feature. The Warren Commission had long ago finished their "investigation" -- and was only wrapping up 'loose ends' at this point.
> > >
> > > The very idea that it would be "customary" to notify Mr. Truly if curtain rods were found is so ridiculous, I'm quite amazed that someone would put that in a report.
> > >
> > > You have to be foolish indeed to rely on a document like CE 2640 -- and DVP has clearly placed himself in that category.
> > >
> > > What you WON'T hear from DVP is an admission that there ARE curtain rods that were found, and fingerprinted in this case... (or a credible explanation for that fact).
> >
> >
> > Notice below that DVP didn't address most of this.
> >
> >
> >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > The curtain rods that Ben Holmes seems to believe were found in the TSBD were actually the two lightweight curtain rods that were found wrapped up in paper in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276).
> > >
> > > No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository and Ben Holmes knows it.
> >
> >
> > No citations, no nothing... merely DVP's speculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Also see Ruth Paine's testimony (at my webpage here) concerning the curtain rods (as they were being unwrapped--on the record--during her Warren Commission session which was taking place in her very own garage).
> >
> >
> > The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.
>
> It was her house. But notice that Ben feels if he doesn`t like evidence it somehow stops being evidence. So Ben calls for cites and evidence, he dismisses it out of hand when it is provided.

What evidence have you provided?

I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.

That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?

[Bud]

You called on DVP to cite evidence, when it does you dismiss it out of hand. Proving once more that you are retarded.

> I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.

I supplied the relevant context that you were ignoring. It was her house.

[Ben Holmes]

It is truly amusing to think that not a SINGLE believer has come forth with any logical reasoning for Ruth Paine's curtain rods to be fingerprinted.

If there were curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, THERE'S NO LOGICAL REASON TO HAVE THEM FINGERPRINTED.

Period.

But if those curtain rods were found elsewhere, then there's a very good reason to have them fingerprinted.

Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...

Or maybe critics have it right that there are curtain rods somewhere in this case that has been covered up.

We certainly never found out from the Warren Commission...

[Ben Holmes]

The answer is, "none".

Good of you to be so honest.

Do you suppose that David needs help?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > > The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.
> > >
> > > It was her house. But notice that Ben feels if he doesn`t like evidence it somehow stops being evidence. So Ben calls for cites and evidence, he dismisses it out of hand when it is provided.
> >
> > What evidence have you provided?
> >
> > I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.
> >
> > That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?
>
> It is truly amusing to think that not a SINGLE believer has come forth with any logical reasoning for Ruth Paine's curtain rods to be fingerprinted.

How about to see if there are any fingerprints on them? God these retards are stupid.

> If there were curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, THERE'S NO LOGICAL REASON TO HAVE THEM FINGERPRINTED.
>
> Period.
>
> But if those curtain rods were found elsewhere, then there's a very good reason to have them fingerprinted.

Retards on the case! Watch these whizz kids figure.

> Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...

That seem to be all you are offering, imagination.

> Or maybe critics have it right that there are curtain rods somewhere in this case that has been covered up.

Maybe I have it right that you guys are retarded.

> We certainly never found out from the Warren Commission...

You gotta stop blaming the WC and firm these retarded ideas of yours up.

[Bud]

You are lying, of course, and he did cite evidence.

> Good of you to be so honest.
>
> Do you suppose that David needs help?

You leave yourself so open I can`t resist planting these pies in your face.

> > > I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.
> >
> > I supplied the relevant context that you were ignoring. It was her house.
>
> I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald...

In her house.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > > The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > It was her house. But notice that Ben feels if he doesn`t like evidence it somehow stops being evidence. So Ben calls for cites and evidence, he dismisses it out of hand when it is provided.
> > >
> > > What evidence have you provided?
> > >
> > > I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.
> > >
> > > That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?
> >
> > It is truly amusing to think that not a SINGLE believer has come forth with any logical reasoning for Ruth Paine's curtain rods to be fingerprinted.
>
> How about to see if there are any fingerprints on them? God these retards are stupid.

And what would fingerprints on curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage show?

If they were Oswald's prints, do you suppose that he took a side trip to Irving on the way to the theater?

If they were not Oswald's, just what did you expect to show?

GIVE US A LOGICAL REASON TO FINGERPRINT CURTAIN RODS ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE!!!

Surely you can't be stupid enough to think that any fingerprints AT ALL on curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage had ANY MEANING WHATSOEVER...

But go ahead, make a fool of yourself ... GIVE A LOGICAL AND COHERENT REASON FOR FINGERPRINTING CURTAIN RODS FOUND IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE.

And no, "to see if there were fingerprints" isn't an answer.

You are, with logic like that, showing precisely who the "retards" actually are.

> > If there were curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, THERE'S NO LOGICAL REASON TO HAVE THEM FINGERPRINTED.
> >
> > Period.
> >
> > But if those curtain rods were found elsewhere, then there's a very good reason to have them fingerprinted.
>
> Retards on the case! Watch these whizz kids figure.

Go ahead, "Bud"... refute what I just stated.

> > Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...
>
> That seem to be all you are offering, imagination.


Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...


> > Or maybe critics have it right that there are curtain rods somewhere in this case that has been covered up.
>
> Maybe I have it right that you guys are retarded.

You are, of course, merely demonstrating that you know you've lost this one.

> > We certainly never found out from the Warren Commission...
>
> You gotta stop blaming the WC and firm these retarded ideas of yours up.

You've got to stop defending the WC without actually supporting anything you claim.

[Ben Holmes]

What evidence have you provided? The answer is, "none".

Lied, didn't you?

[Ben Holmes]

What evidence have you provided? The answer is, "none".

Lied, didn't you?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > The very same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was her house. But notice that Ben feels if he doesn`t like evidence it somehow stops being evidence. So Ben calls for cites and evidence, he dismisses it out of hand when it is provided.
> > > >
> > > > What evidence have you provided?
> > > >
> > > > I asked you if this was the same Ruth Paine who was so instrumental in the "finding" of so much evidence against Oswald... and you couldn't deny it.
> > > >
> > > > That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > It is truly amusing to think that not a SINGLE believer has come forth with any logical reasoning for Ruth Paine's curtain rods to be fingerprinted.
> >
> > How about to see if there are any fingerprints on them? God these retards are stupid.
>
>
> And what would fingerprints on curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage show?

What is your theory on why they would put fingerprint powder on this item for?

> If they were Oswald's prints, do you suppose that he took a side trip to Irving on the way to the theater?
>
> If they were not Oswald's, just what did you expect to show?

Fingerprints?

> GIVE US A LOGICAL REASON TO FINGERPRINT CURTAIN RODS ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE!!!

To check it for fingerprints?

> Surely you can't be stupid enough to think that any fingerprints AT ALL on curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage had ANY MEANING WHATSOEVER...
>
> But go ahead, make a fool of yourself ... GIVE A LOGICAL AND COHERENT REASON FOR FINGERPRINTING CURTAIN RODS FOUND IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE.

To see if it had fingerprints on it.

> And no, "to see if there were fingerprints" isn't an answer.

Damn. Ok, how about this. What is known to you now was not known at the time to every cop involved in this investigation. One cop could not understand the sequencing, might not have the full picture. They are at different places doing different things and hearing different information. It takes seconds to powder it and no harm done if nothing is found. Now, with that context in mind can you see how such a thing can happen without the necessity of anything extraordinary?

> You are, with logic like that, showing precisely who the "retards" actually are.
>
>
> > > If there were curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage, THERE'S NO LOGICAL REASON TO HAVE THEM FINGERPRINTED.
> > >
> > > Period.
> > >
> > > But if those curtain rods were found elsewhere, then there's a very good reason to have them fingerprinted.
> >
> > Retards on the case! Watch these whizz kids figure.
>
>
> Go ahead, "Bud"... refute what I just stated.

Why? I can merely wait until you firm your ideas about this item to the point where it becomes evidence that can be used in support of a premise. As usual you have pretended you gone somewhere when you haven`t moved anything forward in any meaningful way. Pretend you`ve reached a destination with this evidence, but don`t expect anyone who isn`t retarded to pretend along with you.

>
>
> > > Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...
> >
> > That seem to be all you are offering, imagination.
>
>
> Believers run from challenges such as this... perhaps their imagination simply isn't good enough...

Perhaps yours is overactive. I have to thank you for feeding me these straight lines, BTW.

>
> > > Or maybe critics have it right that there are curtain rods somewhere in this case that has been covered up.
> >
> > Maybe I have it right that you guys are retarded.
>
>
> You are, of course, merely demonstrating that you know you've lost this one.

Is that what you figure, retard?

>
>
> > > We certainly never found out from the Warren Commission...
> >
> > You gotta stop blaming the WC and firm these retarded ideas of yours up.
>
> You've got to stop defending the WC without actually supporting anything you claim.

I am not supporting the WC. I am not defending Bugliosi. I am not defending Bugliosi`s book. I am examining your ideas. Your performance thus far has been dismal.

[Ben Holmes]

Then why didn't they fingerprint the cameras that the Paine's had?

Cameras are at *least* as important to this case as curtain rods... so where's the fingerprinting that was done?

Be sure to *CITE* for your claim.

[Bud]

Cite for your claim that cameras are as important as curtain rods in this case.

[Ben Holmes]

Okay, they aren't.

This means that you've just lost the BY photos.

Congratulations!

[Bud]

But they are. You said something that was true. I was just illustrating the problem of citing for something just because it was true.

> This means that you've just lost the BY photos.

Who said photos? The comparison was cameras and curtain rods.

> Congratulations!

[Ben Holmes]

Now that you've realized you'd lose the BY photos, you've suddenly changed your mind.

How stupid of you!!!

> You said something that was true. I was just illustrating the problem of citing for something just because it was true.

Too late... you've lost the BY photos.

> > This means that you've just lost the BY photos.
>
> Who said photos? The comparison was cameras and curtain rods.

Without the camera, you have no photos...


> > Congratulations!


Indeed, you're argument has blown up in your face.

Now that you've been forced to admit that cameras are just as important as curtain rods in this case... explain why the cameras found at the Ruth Paine residence were not fingerprinted.

(Thought I'd forgotten the point, didn't you?)

[Bud]

What did I change my mind about, stupid? You made the comparison between cameras and curtains rods. I only challenged you to cite for it.

> How stupid of you!!!
>
>
> > You said something that was true. I was just illustrating the problem of citing for something just because it was true.
>
>
> Too late... you've lost the BY photos.

<snicker> You`re an idiot on several levels here, not the least of which is that cameras and photos are different things.

>
> > > This means that you've just lost the BY photos.
> >
> > Who said photos? The comparison was cameras and curtain rods.
>
>
> Without the camera, you have no photos...

Really? Photo can`t be admitted into evidence unlesss you have the camera that took them? Sometimes a murderer will send photos of their victims to the police to taunt them. Do you suppose in those cases they shred them?

>
> > > Congratulations!
>
>
> Indeed, you're argument has blown up in your face.
>
> Now that you've been forced to admit that cameras are just as important as curtain rods in this case...

I asked you to cite for the opinion you expressed, knowing it couldn`t be done. I did this to illustrate the stupidity of calling for cites in certain instances. The lesson was lost on you.

> explain why the cameras found at the Ruth Paine residence were not fingerprinted.
>
> (Thought I'd forgotten the point, didn't you?)

Would would you think I need to explain this?

[Ben Holmes]

By challenging the importance of fingerprinting a camera, you tried to defend the fingerprinting of the curtain rods.

Now that you acknowledge the importance of any cameras found in this case, you need to explain why cameras were not fingerprinted.

Otherwise, your silly explanation for curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage falls apart.

But don't worry "Bud" - I'm happy to keep pointing out your logical inconsistencies and cowardly refusals to address the evidential points I raise.

> > How stupid of you!!!
> >
> >
> > > You said something that was true. I was just illustrating the problem of citing for something just because it was true.
> >
> >
> > Too late... you've lost the BY photos.
>
> <snicker> You`re an idiot on several levels here, not the least of which is that cameras and photos are different things.

No "Bud" - they aren't.

They're *BOTH* critical to the developing of a case against Oswald.

Don't think that any lurkers haven't noticed that you've been unable to explain why the curtain rods were fingerprinted.


Believers often believe that they can criticize the critics, but don't have to defend their own faith.

Provably wrong.

> > > > This means that you've just lost the BY photos.
> > >
> > > Who said photos? The comparison was cameras and curtain rods.
> >
> >
> > Without the camera, you have no photos...
>
> Really? Photo can`t be admitted into evidence unlesss you have the camera that took them? Sometimes a murderer will send photos of their victims to the police to taunt them. Do you suppose in those cases they shred them?

I see you need a reminder... so I'm happy to repost it:

I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.

A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what LNT'ers perceive them to be:

Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:

"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.

It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.

But even the government (HSCA) was unable to validate the autopsy photos, to take one example, as coming from the camera that was used at Bethesda.

The HSCA reported that the autopsy photographs were authenticated, although it claimed that the "Department of Defense was unable to locate" the camera and lens that had been used at the autopsy.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/head_wound/bradford_22_mar_00/Extras/DOD_and_camera.jpg

HSCA files released in 1997, however, revealed that DOD had indeed identified the camera and sent it to the Committee, but that the Committee's photographic experts, rather than raising embarrassing questions of authenticity, chose instead to conclude that the camera and lens had not been the one used to take the autopsy photographs existing in 1977.

Or, to put it another way, the HSCA simply lied.

The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.

Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:

"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs. None had differing accounts."

This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the 1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.

See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second shooter."

http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm

This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no believer has undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?

(And why do believers keep running from this question?)

> > > > Congratulations!
> >
> >
> > Indeed, you're argument has blown up in your face.
> >
> > Now that you've been forced to admit that cameras are just as important as curtain rods in this case...
>
> I asked you to cite for the opinion you expressed, knowing it couldn`t be done. I did this to illustrate the stupidity of calling for cites in certain instances. The lesson was lost on you.

As I've stated many times: Citation, Evidence, and Logical Argument.


Of course, now you've admitted to accepting the importance of cameras all along, and are simply demonstrating your dishonest again.

> > explain why the cameras found at the Ruth Paine residence were not fingerprinted.
> >
> > (Thought I'd forgotten the point, didn't you?)
>
> Would would you think I need to explain this?

Moron, aren't you?

Or, more likely, simply demonstrating yet again your cowardice.

[Bud]

Wrong again. You wanted me to speculate on how the curtain rods could have come to be dusted for prints, so I did.

> Now that you acknowledge the importance of any cameras found in this case, you need to explain why cameras were not fingerprinted.

I`m not following your logic.

> Otherwise, your silly explanation for curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage falls apart.

Is that how you figure it? Isn`t this figuring based on the assumption of yours that if they handle on piece of evidence one way they must handle every piece the same way?

> But don't worry "Bud" - I'm happy to keep pointing out your logical inconsistencies and cowardly refusals to address the evidential points I raise.

You ask me to speculate on how pieces of evidence were handled and you figure this in some way scores points for you. I might be able to help you more if you could provide all the context information (when it was found, where, by who, who was in charge,ect).

>
>
> > > How stupid of you!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > You said something that was true. I was just illustrating the problem of citing for something just because it was true.
> > >
> > >
> > > Too late... you've lost the BY photos.
> >
> > <snicker> You`re an idiot on several levels here, not the least of which is that cameras and photos are different things.
>
>
> No "Bud" - they aren't.

Wow!

> They're *BOTH* critical to the developing of a case against Oswald.

They are still different things. You brought up cameras. When you couldn`t score whatever points you were trying to score with that you moved the goalposts to photos.

> Don't think that any lurkers haven't noticed that you've been unable to explain why the curtain rods were fingerprinted.

I have no ideas that require that information.

>
> Believers often believe that they can criticize the critics, but don't have to defend their own faith.

You started this series of posts claiming you were going to refute the 53 things on Bugliosi`s list. You keep trying to shift the burden onto me.

> Provably wrong.
>
>
> > > > > This means that you've just lost the BY photos.
> > > >
> > > > Who said photos? The comparison was cameras and curtain rods.
> > >
> > >
> > > Without the camera, you have no photos...
> >
> > Really? Photo can`t be admitted into evidence unlesss you have the camera that took them? Sometimes a murderer will send photos of their victims to the police to taunt them. Do you suppose in those cases they shred them?
>
> I see you need a reminder... so I'm happy to repost it:
>
> I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.

We going to rehash these old issues now? What does this strawman have to do with what we were discussing.

> A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what LNT'ers perceive them to be:

Do you think there was a dog in the limo? Winess says theres was, the photographic evidence shows otherwise.

The fact is that the bar for admitting a lot of things into evidence is very low. Once in evidence it is used all the time to contradict witness testimony.

> Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony.

I don`t see that that is true. They put up cameras to capture traffic violations, nobody has to vouch that the cameras got it right.

> For example:
>
> "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.

Note the date. Anyone can see that the admittance of evidence is not a big deal. Marina put a lot of things in evidence just by saying it looked like Oswald`s clothing or whatever. The bar is low.

Here is one legal examination of the law...

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hastlj8&div=40&id=&page=

In practice, the bar is low.

Lets just look at one thing, the BY photo. They would only need to send a cop to the location the photo was taken and then have that cop vouch that the photo accurately portrayed the scene. You wouldn`t need Oswald to vouch for the photo, and you wouldn`t need him standing there with a rifle when the cop went to check the location out.

> It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.

Why do you think that material hasn`t been vouched for in a legally sufficient way? The medical folks vouched for the medical evidence, photographs and x-rays, for instance.

> But even the government (HSCA) was unable to validate the autopsy photos,

Why do you say this? The people who conducted the autopsy vouched for them.

>to take one example, as coming from the camera that was used at Bethesda.

You are moving the goalposts again. You said the material needed people vouching for it. Now that is not good enough.

> The HSCA reported that the autopsy photographs were authenticated, although it claimed that the "Department of Defense was unable to locate" the camera and lens that had been used at the autopsy.

Have you shown that it is legal necessity to validating the x-rays?

> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/head_wound/bradford_22_mar_00/Extras/DOD_and_camera.jpg
>
> HSCA files released in 1997, however, revealed that DOD had indeed identified the camera and sent it to the Committee, but that the Committee's photographic experts, rather than raising embarrassing questions of authenticity, chose instead to conclude that the camera and lens had not been the one used to take the autopsy photographs existing in 1977.
>
> Or, to put it another way, the HSCA simply lied.

How did you establish their conclusion as not true?

> The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.

Really going off on a tangent now. Focus Ben, you are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.

> Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
>
> "At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
>
> This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the 1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
>
> See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second shooter."
>
> http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm
>
> This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no believer has undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
>
> (And why do believers keep running from this question?)
>
>
>
> > > > > Congratulations!
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed, you're argument has blown up in your face.
> > >
> > > Now that you've been forced to admit that cameras are just as important as curtain rods in this case...
> >
> > I asked you to cite for the opinion you expressed, knowing it couldn`t be done. I did this to illustrate the stupidity of calling for cites in certain instances. The lesson was lost on you.
>
>
> As I've stated many times: Citation, Evidence, and Logical Argument.

This assumes what is necessary to resolve every issue must exist in evidence.

>
> Of course, now you've admitted to accepting the importance of cameras all along, and are simply demonstrating your dishonest again.

Where did I say that cameras weren`t important?

>
> > > explain why the cameras found at the Ruth Paine residence were not fingerprinted.
> > >
> > > (Thought I'd forgotten the point, didn't you?)
> >
> > Would would you think I need to explain this?
>
>
> Moron, aren't you?
>
> Or, more likely, simply demonstrating yet again your cowardice.

You just don`t understand the process.

[Ben Holmes]

And your speculation completely fails... since no cameras were likewise fingerprinted, despite being just as critical to the investigation as curtain rods.

You lose!!

[Bud]

In what meaningful way have you shown that curtain rods that have been tested for fingerprints and camera that is not cannot both exist without hanky panky?

[Ben Holmes]

Literacy rears its ugly head again.

If you can't follow simple arguments, then you'll just have to have someone else explain it to you.