WHERE DID THE CURTAIN RODS GO?

[BOZ]

According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.

After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
leave.

When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
rods.

Where the hell did they go?

His rifle was found in the TSBD.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Maybe, just maybe, the curtain rods didn't exist, it was just a cover
story for what was really in the bag, the rifle. Don't expect CT'ers to
buy that though, it makes too much sense and fits all the other evidence,
something they're genetically incapable of comprehending.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2019 11:15 PM, BOZ wrote:
> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>
> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> leave.
>
> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> rods.
>

When he was arrested he HAD already gone back to the rooming house and
changed.

> Where the hell did they go?
>

In the National Archives.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/32/Photo_naraevid_PaineCurtainRods-1.jpg

> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>
>

So was his jacket, days later.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Sure, it's *possible* they were curtain rods IF you isolate the evidence
and look at it separately and independent of other evidence. But the sum
of evidence, the totality of the physical and eyewitness and
circumstantial information, indicates it wasn't curtain rods.

But this - i.e., stripping evidence from the totality, is what they do. A
conspiracy believers says "Person "X" said JFK's brain was missing" or
"Person Y said the fragments he had taken from JFK's brain were larger
than a single bullet" and they just accept that (notice that they'll
believe both?: JFK's brain was missing AND fragments larger than a bullet
were taken from it - but nevermind). How does what is claimed fit with the
other evidence? It doesn't matter to a conspiracy believer (some of them;
the more doctrinaire) since that alone supports their fervent wish to
believe there was a conspiracy.

As we've all said repeatedly: eyewitness accounts are unreliable. That's
true with accounts that show Oswald was the lone assassin and those that
show the murder was done in coordination.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:5c5ca7ea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

One problem: Oswald denied ever bringing curtain rods into work that day,
or any long package for that matter -- directly contradicting Frazier. I
know, I know: DPD lied about this, right?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[BOZ]

Those are Mrs. Paine's curtain rods.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/6/2019 11:15 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
> >
> > After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> > leave.
> >
> > When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> > rods.
> >
>
> When he was arrested he HAD already gone back to the rooming house and
> changed.
>
>
> > Where the hell did they go?
> >
>
> In the National Archives.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/32/Photo_naraevid_PaineCurtainRods-1.jpg

No, that's a false statement. The curtain rods in the archives were
recovered from Ruth Paine's garage during the Warren Commission
investigation phase (look at the name of the .jpg). They weren't the ones
Oswald claimed he took to the Depository. They could never be and never
were the curtain rods Oswald told Frazier he was going to the Paine home
to get on Thursday night, and claimed to be within the package Oswald
brought to work the following day. They were in the Paine garage until
after the assassination. Your claim is false.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. JENNER - It was your impression as you testified last week that you had some curtain rods on the shelf wrapped in a paper wrapping?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, I testified that.
Mr. JENNER - That was your impression, was it not?
Mrs. PAINE - And as part of the testimony I said they were very light and might not deserve their own wrapping.
Mr. JENNER - You, of course you did state it was possible they might not be separately wrapped?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Is there another shelf below the shelf on which you found the first two packages?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; there is.
Mr. JENNER - And, Mr. Howlett, that shelf is about how far below the upper one on which we found the two packages?
Agent HOWLETT - About 10 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER - Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct, Mr. Howlett?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. JENNER - Painted or enameled white?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett-- how many do you have there?
Agent HOWLETT - There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored.
Mr. JENNER - Now, would you please search the rest of that shelf and see if you can find any other curtain rods or anything similar to the curtain rods, and look on the bottom shelves, Mr. Howlett, will you please?
While he is doing that, Mrs. Paine, I notice there is on your garage floor what looks like a file casing you have for documents similar, at least it seems substantially identical to those that we had in Washington last week.
Mrs. PAINE - This is a filing case similar, yes, slightly different in color to one that you had in Washington. It contains madrigal music. It was on November 22 at the apartment where my husband was living.
Agent HOWLETT - I have just finished searching both shelves and I don't find any other curtain rods.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves, the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they are.
Mr. JENNER - And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I do not.
Mr. JENNER - And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage at any time on the 21st or 22d of November 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - None whatsoever.
== UNQUOTE ==

>
> > His rifle was found in the TSBD.
> >
> >
>
>
> So was his jacket, days later.

So was his cardboard clip board.

But unsurprisingly, no curtain rods ever turned up. Because there was none
to be found.

And no curtain rods seen carried by Oswald onto the bus, or into the cab,
or seen in his possession when he entered the rooming house.

Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after
the assassination, because Oswald's rifle was left behind in the
Depository after the assassination as was the long paper bag bearing his
print he used to bring the concealed rifle into the building.

There's never been any curtain rods to recover because Oswald brought a
rifle to the Depository, not any imaginary curtain rods.

Your pretense to the contrary is just that. Pretense.

Hank

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 9:48:40 PM UTC-5, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

Just to put a bow on this: Here's another photo of the curtain rods found
during the search of the Paine's home. They were, as has been mentioned
repeatedly, taken from the garage owned by the Paines. Ruth Paine
identified them as belonging to them.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm

SS agent John Howlett retrieved them from the garage. JC Day of the Dallas
PD then examined them for prints and said the one legible print found did
not belong to Oswald.

In conspiracy world curtain rods found in the Paine garage - with no
identifiable prints on them belonging to Oswald - equals rods taken by
Oswald to the TSBD. How could rods in the garage be the ones taken from
the garage by Oswald? Never mind, they could be the same. This is how some
of these people think.

[Mark]

A great post. This is a man who can't understand why we don't take his
claim of being great "researcher" seriously. Here's a great example. He
will flat out misrepresent, ignore, or make up evidence. He's become a
sad figure. Mark

[Allan G. Johnson]

Typical misdirection and biased interpretation of evidence. It's
actually evidence of CTer's grasping at straws and trying to convince
themselves that ANY real evidence of Oswald's guilt is faked or somehow
not true.

[Mark]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-6, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

Thank you, Hank.

Marsh, I have to ask again: Can you get anything right about the basic
facts of the assassination? Why do you feel a need to try to convince us
of something that is demonstrably false?

The curtain rods stored in the National Archives at College Park were
found in the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.

What is your problem? Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

There are no marks on the bag that indicate it held a rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which witnesses said they saw other people shooting?
You don't even have witnesses saying that they saw Oswald shooting.
Is your theory that Euins was correct and that it was a black man shooting?

[Anthony Marsh]

Who lied? Frazier? So what? I never said he was the mastermind. Just an
incompetent Klutz.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he stole her curtain rods. Give him the death penalty for that.
Micael Paine said he wasn't sure how many curtain rods they had in the
garage.

[Anthony Marsh]

I like the way you misrepresent and quote out of context. Micheal Paine

wasn't sure how many curtain rods they had in the garage.

>
>>

>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So was his jacket, days later.
>
> So was his cardboard clip board.
>
> But unsurprisingly, no curtain rods ever turned up. Because there was none
> to be found.
>

Maybe some turned up but disappeared while in police or FBI custody.

> And no curtain rods seen carried by Oswald onto the bus, or into the cab,
> or seen in his possession when he entered the rooming house.
>

I never said that Oswald took curtain rods out of the TSBD. Neither did
he take his jacket. Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
one noticed them.

> Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
> the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after

My argument does not need Oswald to take curtain rods out of the TSBD.

> the assassination, because Oswald's rifle was left behind in the
> Depository after the assassination as was the long paper bag bearing his
> print he used to bring the concealed rifle into the building.
>
> There's never been any curtain rods to recover because Oswald brought a
> rifle to the Depository, not any imaginary curtain rods.
>

The bag that Frazier saw was too short to hold the Carcano.
Do you even know that there were TWO bags in evidence?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Mark, he knew where the rods came from. And when. And that, in addition,
none of Oswald's prints were found on them. We had this exchange before.

He doesn't like being called an "Oswald defender" but what else do you
call someone who tries to defend the claim that Oswald brought curtain
rods by using the "curtain rods were found" argument?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

>Thank you, Hank.
>
>Marsh, I have to ask again: Can you get anything right about the basic
>facts of the assassination? Why do you feel a need to try to convince us
>of something that is demonstrably false?
>
>The curtain rods stored in the National Archives at College Park were
>found in the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.
>
>What is your problem? Mark

His problem is evident. He has no evidence.

Hank

[BOZ]

Black man shooting? Don't tell me Oswald was in blackface too?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was quite aware of the need to keep as far away from ownership of
that rifle as possible. He had to deny any possibility whatsoever that he
was connected to it.

The Oswald defenders, the conspiracy advocates who believe he was framed,
understand that too. They may look at this event completely different than
we do but they too realize they have to keep that rifle away from Oswald.
He didn't bring it with him to that building, he didn't use it and they
have no idea how it got there. Well, someone put it there. Who? They can't
say; but it wasn't Oswald.

That's there story and they're sticking with it. He did too.

[InsideSparta]

There were no marks on the bag that indicate it held Oswald's supposed
lunch either. So, what does that mean? The bag did contain fibers that
matched those from the blanket in the Paine garage which the MC rifle had
been wrapped in. The bag also had Oswald's fingerprint and palm print.
Oswald lied when he denied taking a long package to work with him that
morning and carrying it into the TSBD. He lied when he said he carried a
sack lunch that day. Why do you think he lied? For the same reason he lied
about owning a rifle in the first place. I don't for a minute believe that
you actually think Oswald brought curtain rods or his lunch to work on
November 22, 1963. It appears you just like to argue for the sake of
arguing.

[slats]

"Steve M. Galbraith" <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:590090b9-516e-431c...@googlegroups.com:

If he brought them into work that day, he would have told police where to
find them because that would be his alibi. Instead, he denied bringing ANY
curtain rods to work or ANY long package when interrogated by the DPD. So
Tony thinks the rods exist when Oswald himself said they didn't. You can't
make this stuff up.

[Mark]

Wonderful, Steve. I didn't know that, though I'm not surprised. Don't know
if he forgets, or if he just likes to BS. Either way, he's hard to take
seriously. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Go ahead. Pretend that you know absolutely nothing about this case.
Make your fellow WC defenders proud.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did they even look for fingerprints. silly?

Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of curtain rods?
Mr. PAINE - These expanding rods that are----
Mr. LIEBELER - And you have no idea where they came from?
Mr. PAINE - Let's see, no, those came down from--I think those were in
the house, I guess they weren't bought. I think Ruth took them down
because the children were allergic to something, and she was taking them
down, took down the curtains, and left only shades. Bought shades, I
guess, she bought curtain shades to go up, new shades. That is a
question, well, of course, paper could have been--I don't remember any
particular, I didn't have any rolls of this kind of paper or a supply of
it, wrapping paper.
Mr. LIEBELER - Let's go back to the curtain rods for just a minute. You
say they were in the house at the time in Irving when you purchased the
house.
Mr. PAINE - Yes, curtain rods came to my mind recently because they are
junk that I try to keep propped up on the shelves or above the work
bench, and I think they were in our house and there were curtains on
them and she took the curtains down to get rid of the fabric that might
be holding dust and put up instead some new curtains, new window shades
in the bedrooms.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately when did she do that, do you remember?
Mr. PAINE - You will have to ask Ruth herself. She put down a new floor,
also, getting rid of the old rugs for the same purpose, and I thought it
was in the fall, but I can't place when it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - In the fall of 1963?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you say the curtain rods are still in the garage?
Mr. PAINE - Yes, I think so.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how long are they?
Mr. PAINE - Well, I think this is, when they expand, I guess the curtain
rods themselves are 32 1/2 inches to 3 feet, but the two of them slide
together to make a pair, this expanding type just of rod metal.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how long are they, would you say, when they
are fitted together and in their collapsed state or their----
Mr. PAINE - As I say, those came out of house or she would not have, I
was trying to think of some of the paper she might have had that
resembles this, but the thing she bought new would be the shades, the
window shades to go in place of those curtain rods.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember seeing any paper in the garage that might
have been a package in which those shades came?
Mr. PAINE - No, I don't recall any.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever have a conversation with your wife about
these curtain rods in connection with the assassination?
Mr. PAINE - No. I think we did both read that he had said he was, to
Frazier, that he was carrying, maybe it was curtain rods or something to
do with windows in my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - But your wife didn't mention to you that Oswald ever
mentioned to her anything about the curtains rods?
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, place yourself in the garage on or about November
21, 22, 1963, or shortly before that time, and tell me everything that
you can remember as being in that garage.
Mr. PAINE - Well, there is a bench along, in front of, a fiberglass
window panel. That bench is generally covered with boxes, there are
boxes underneath that bench. On the end of the bench is a drill press.
My recollection is confused by the fact I am much more familiar with it
now that I have moved back and I have moved my stuff into that garage,
so it is fuzzy in my memory.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you present on November 22 when the police or the
FBI or any other authorities searched the garage?
Mr. PAINE - No, I wasn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/12/2019 3:28 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:09:56 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/7/2019 9:48 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:15:44 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>>>>
>>>> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
>>>> leave.
>>>>
>>>> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
>>>> rods.
>>>>
>>>> Where the hell did they go?
>>>>
>>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>>>
>>> Maybe, just maybe, the curtain rods didn't exist, it was just a cover
>>> story for what was really in the bag, the rifle. Don't expect CT'ers to
>>> buy that though, it makes too much sense and fits all the other evidence,
>>> something they're genetically incapable of comprehending.
>>>
>>
>> There are no marks on the bag that indicate it held a rifle.
>
> There were no marks on the bag that indicate it held Oswald's supposed
> lunch either. So, what does that mean? The bag did contain fibers that

It wasn't cjhecked for food. But they did find bags with chicken bnes in
them. Did they fingerprint those?
Did the fingerprint the soda bottles?

> matched those from the blanket in the Paine garage which the MC rifle had
> been wrapped in. The bag also had Oswald's fingerprint and palm print.
> Oswald lied when he denied taking a long package to work with him that

He told Frazier he was taking a bag and frazier said it was too short to
hold the rifle.

> morning and carrying it into the TSBD. He lied when he said he carried a
> sack lunch that day. Why do you think he lied? For the same reason he lied

He did not say that.
Why do I think others lie about what Oswald said? To frame him?

> about owning a rifle in the first place. I don't for a minute believe that

I think Oswald lied about the rifle because he had shot at General
Walker and they might still link him to that.

> you actually think Oswald brought curtain rods or his lunch to work on
> November 22, 1963. It appears you just like to argue for the sake of
> arguing.
>

Blah, blah, blah.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU are demonstrably false. YOU ASSuME things without proving them.

> The curtain rods stored in the National Archives at College Park were
> found in the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.
>
> What is your problem? Mark
>

YOU.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

OK wise guy, then tell me WHOSE fingerprints were found on them. Now YOU
say that none of Oswald's fingerprints were found on those curtain rods.
Can you prove that? Were they even dusted for prints? Whose prints did
they find? If you don't look for something you may not find it? Who moved
all those boxes 4 times to rearrange the sniper's nest? Whose fingerprints
are on all those boxes? Any cops?

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm the only one posting evidence. All you guys know how to post are
insults.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly, You don't know what he told the police. Did he tell them where to
find his jacket or the bottle of Coke? No, they covered that up, because
it could be his alibi.

> find them because that would be his alibi. Instead, he denied bringing ANY
> curtain rods to work or ANY long package when interrogated by the DPD. So

No, he did not. We don't know exactly what he said.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

There is no way to satisfy a buff. The HOBBY must continue at all costs.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I like the way you level accusations with no evidence in support. Show I
misrepresented anything and show I quoted out of context. You won't,
because I didn't.

Let's get back on track. Whose curtain rods are in the archives? You
claimed it was the ones brought into the building by Oswald when asked
"Where the hell did they [Oswald's curtain rods] go?" You responded with
"In the National Archives". We've established that is incorrect. Wrong.
Not True. False.

The curtain rods in the archives were recovered from the Paine garage, as
I established above.

So now you want to pretend Paine's statement somehow means Oswald brought
curtain rods to the TSBD and Oswald lied about that in custody when he
said Frazier was mistaken and he didn't bring anything that long into the
building that morning?

I see you're arguing that above: "Yes, he stole her curtain rods. Give him

the death penalty for that."

Is that the argument now?

Doesn't matter. Show how THOSE curtain rods brought to the Depository by
Oswald got into the archives as you claimed.

You are contradicting yourself big time.

>
> >
> >>
> >>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> So was his jacket, days later.
> >
> > So was his cardboard clip board.
> >
> > But unsurprisingly, no curtain rods ever turned up. Because there was none
> > to be found.
> >
>
> Maybe some turned up but disappeared while in police or FBI custody.

MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???

Hilarious.

If they 'disappeared', how'd they wind up in the archives as you claimed?
Where are they? The curtain rods you provided a picture of were recovered
from the Paine garage well after the assassination. Those curtain rods
weren't in police or FBI custody and 'disappeared'.

>
> > And no curtain rods seen carried by Oswald onto the bus, or into the cab,
> > or seen in his possession when he entered the rooming house.
> >
>
> I never said that Oswald took curtain rods out of the TSBD.

I never said you did. But that's your problem, not mine.

Focus, Tony.

No curtain rods were reported found in the TSBD. You already said Oswald's
curtain rods were in the National Archives. How'd they get from the TSBD
to the Archives as you claimed?

We need a paper trail. Some testimony. A document. Something. You got that?

Of course you don't.

> Neither did
> he take his jacket. Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> one noticed them.

MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???

Hilarious.

If nobody noticed them, how'd they get from under the jacket to the
Archives as you previously asserted, Tony?

>
> > Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
> > the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after
>
> My argument does not need Oswald to take curtain rods out of the TSBD.

Then they need to be discovered in the TSBD to get to the archives, where
you claimed they were. Who discovered them there? Where can I find their
testimony? A signed document for these curtain rods? Anything along those
lines?

>
> > the assassination, because Oswald's rifle was left behind in the
> > Depository after the assassination as was the long paper bag bearing his
> > print he used to bring the concealed rifle into the building.
> >
> > There's never been any curtain rods to recover because Oswald brought a
> > rifle to the Depository, not any imaginary curtain rods.
> >
>
> The bag that Frazier saw was too short to hold the Carcano.

False assertion ... the correct assertion would be "Frazier's *estimate*
of the length of the bag Frazier said he saw was too short to contain the
Carcano, if Frazier's *estimate* was correct. However, the bag recovered
in the TSBD bearing Oswald's print is long enough to contain the Carcano".

And after calling Frazier an incompetent klutz here: "Who lied? Frazier?

So what? I never said he was the mastermind. Just an incompetent Klutz"

you're now relying on this *estimate* by this supposed *klutz* of the
length of the package he saw to attempt to eliminate the rifle from
Oswald's hand.

Conspiracy theorists always do that... they start out arguing Frazier's
estimate is gospel and shouldn't be doubted, and then, when confronted
with Frazier's testimony that Oswald said there were curtain rods in the
package -- curtain rods that were never found -- wind up calling Frazier a
liar or mistaken and pretend Oswald had nothing in his hands.

Anything to avoid the reasonable conclusion that the rifle - the rifle
that Oswald ordered, paid for, had shipped to his PO box and took
possession of, leaving his prints on the weapon and photos of him behind
holding that weapon -- was brought to the Depository by Oswald.

Who else had access to the Depository and access to the Paine garage and
knew Oswald's rifle was stored there? Anyone besides Oswald? By process of
elimination, based on the available evidence, we can determine Oswald was
the only person who could have brought the rifle from the Paine garage to
the Depository.

> Do you even know that there were TWO bags in evidence?

Yes. The second one was manufactured by the FBI from TSBD paper because
the original was stained in the process of developing the fingerprints on
the rifle. You're not going to trip me up by attempting to interject the
logical fallacy of a red herring into the conversation.

This is just a desperate attempt at a change of subject by you. We're
talking about your claim that Oswald's curtain rods are in the archives.
Thus far you've offered no evidence of that, and argued above they in fact
were never recovered ("Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
one noticed them").

If they were never recovered, how could they be in the archives, Tony?

Your pretenses here are just that. Pretenses. They have no basis in
reality.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:09:56 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Anthony, my old friend. Just as factually challenged as always, I see.
Ah. Nothing changes.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The rods *were* checked for prints.

DPD crime scene search form of the curtain rods
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth337461/

Written on them: "check for prints" and "1 legible print..does not belong
to Oswald."

Fingerprints taken from curtain rods

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49811/
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49812/
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49813/
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49815/

Even if his prints were on the rods (none were found), the rods were found
in the garage AFTER THE ASSASSINATION. They were not found in the
building. If they were in her garage then how could they have been brought
by him to the building?

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:5c637c74$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

So we DON'T know what Oswald said, but you DO know that they covered it
up. Brilliant.

>> find them because that would be his alibi. Instead, he denied
>> bringing ANY curtain rods to work or ANY long package when
>> interrogated by the DPD. So
>
> No, he did not. We don't know exactly what he said.

You mean besides the witnesses in the room and contemporaneous notes?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, you posted the assertion that Lucien Sarte was the grassy knoll
assassin, but nothing in the way of evidence of that.

You also posted the assertion that Oswald's curtain rods are in the
archives, but the link to the image you posted identifies them as Paine's
curtain rods.

I posted the evidence -- an excerpt from Mrs. Paine's testimony
establishing the curtain rods came from her garage after the
assassination.

In response, you accused me of taking stuff out of context and
misrepresenting things (another two assertions with no evidence), went off
on a whole lot of tangents that I took apart here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/R6X0WHb1GQAJ

We're still waiting for you to establish those are Oswald's curtain rods
in the archives as you claimed. Good thing we're not holding our breath,
huh?

Hank

[InsideSparta]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/12/2019 3:28 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:09:56 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2019 9:48 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:15:44 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> >>>> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
> >>>>
> >>>> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> >>>> leave.
> >>>>
> >>>> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> >>>> rods.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where the hell did they go?
> >>>>
> >>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe, just maybe, the curtain rods didn't exist, it was just a cover
> >>> story for what was really in the bag, the rifle. Don't expect CT'ers to
> >>> buy that though, it makes too much sense and fits all the other evidence,
> >>> something they're genetically incapable of comprehending.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are no marks on the bag that indicate it held a rifle.
> >
> > There were no marks on the bag that indicate it held Oswald's supposed
> > lunch either. So, what does that mean? The bag did contain fibers that
>
> It wasn't cjhecked for food. But they did find bags with chicken bnes in
> them. Did they fingerprint those?
> Did the fingerprint the soda bottles?

Can you prove that they didn't fingerprint to lunch sack with the chicken bones or the soda bottle? Or, are you simply ASSuming that they weren't dusted?

>
> > matched those from the blanket in the Paine garage which the MC rifle had
> > been wrapped in. The bag also had Oswald's fingerprint and palm print.
> > Oswald lied when he denied taking a long package to work with him that
>
> He told Frazier he was taking a bag and frazier said it was too short to
> hold the rifle.

Where's that short bag? The one that was found on the 6th floor had Oswald's prints on it, fibers that matched the blanket in the Paine's garage, and WAS long enough to hold the dismantled rifle. That bag is in the National Archives. Where's your alternate bag?

> > morning and carrying it into the TSBD. He lied when he said he carried a
> > sack lunch that day. Why do you think he lied? For the same reason he lied
>
> He did not say that.
> Why do I think others lie about what Oswald said? To frame him?

How'd they get his rifle and sneak it into the TSBD? Did they luck out and
find a guy to frame that happened to work on the motorcade route? Or, did
they manage to place LHO there as an employee before the route and
location for the luncheon had even been decided? Did they also just
blindly luck out that Roy Truly decided to have LHO work at the Elm Street
warehouse instead of filling the other position at the warehouse that was
several blocks away and off the motorcade route? Please provide evidence
as to how your incredible framing of poor LHO was pulled off and kept
secret all the years.

>
> > about owning a rifle in the first place. I don't for a minute believe that
>
> I think Oswald lied about the rifle because he had shot at General
> Walker and they might still link him to that.

How convenient that your mysterious conspirators happened to luck out and
frame a guy that had tried to assassinate another public figure a mere
seven months earlier.

>
> > you actually think Oswald brought curtain rods or his lunch to work on
> > November 22, 1963. It appears you just like to argue for the sake of
> > arguing.
> >
>
> Blah, blah, blah.

"Blah, blah, blah"? That's apropos, coming from someone that chimes in on
99% of every topic that gets posted.

>
> >
> >

[davide...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>
> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> leave.
>
> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> rods.
>
> Where the hell did they go?
>
> His rifle was found in the TSBD.

Well, certainly you know the standard CT comeback to this - right? They'd
ask you, "Who says so? Wesley Buell Frazier? Pfft!" Then they'll launch
into how Frazier described Oswald carrying the package in a way that is
inconsistent with the length of the disassembled rifle.

Of course, on this matter of how Oswald carried the rifle - all one has to
do is actually go through Wesley Frazier's testimony before the WC and
it's quite evident he was not certain. He keeps repeating, over and over
again, how he wasn't paying that close attention. And why would he?

Now, back to the standard CT comeback for his testimony. By the time
Frazier testified he was informed (by whom?) as to what he had to say. You
see, "they" got to all these witnesses before they testified before the
Commission and had them modify their stories to be consistent with the
Commission's predetermined conclusion.

Certainly you've been at this long enough to know how this all goes.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

BUMP FOR TONY MARSH.

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 3:11:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/9/2019 4:38 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2019 11:15 PM, BOZ wrote:
> >>> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
> >>>
> >>> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> >>> leave.
> >>>
> >>> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> >>> rods.
> >>>
> >>
> >> When he was arrested he HAD already gone back to the rooming house and
> >> changed.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Where the hell did they go?
> >>>
> >>

- hide quoted text -

[Allan G. Johnson]

Why didn't Oswald include the rods from Ruth Paines house in the bag
with the rifle? He could then plant the rifle in the building during the
day and keep the rods in the bag. He could then have a verifiable alibi
for what was in the bag. Another indication this planned assassination
attempt was not clearly thought out and was not a conspiracy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Good point. Assuming he was aware of them. Or why didn't he break the rods
in his room to make it look like he needed to replace them?

He also left photos and negatives of the backyard photos among his
possessions too. Hell, why did he leave the TSBD so quickly after the
shooting and not stay around pretending to find out what happened?

He took a series of actions before, during and after the assassination
that just shout guilt.

[Allan G. Johnson]

This all points to a plan that was thrown together with little time to
prepare, not something deviously thought out and preplanned. A solo crime
to be sure. If he was set up to be an unknowing patsy, it didn't work,
his actions indicate he knew what happened. A knowing patsy doesn't wash
either, he didn't take the fall, he denied everything.

The only reasonable possibility is that maybe one or two other people
knew what he was about to do (technically a conspiracy because it involved
other people) but to this day, nothing of that kind has ever been proven
or been shown to be necessary. All his actions were the result of what
one person can carry out when he sets his mind to it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, an alternative explanation could be that he expected help escaping -
a ride, an air flight - so he didn't bother on coming up with an alibi or
destroying evidence since he was going to vanish. Or have help vanishing.
And then he was left hanging.

If I recall it correctly, this was one of the Garrison scenarios: LHO
conspired with Ferrie and Shaw and others and then they abandoned him and
left him to take the hit for the assassination. Of course, Garrison also
believed that Shaw tried to get Oswald an attorney. So he wasn't really
abandoning him. Garrison could argue it was round one day and then square
the next.

The more logical one is he expected to die. Suicide by assassination.

[Allan G. Johnson]

A abandoned patsy left out to dry. That conspiracy scenario, possible
but also unproven, even after 50+ years. Conspiracy's usually don't
remain quiet for long, the first crack leads to the flood gates opening.
How long did the Jussie Smollett conspiracy stay quiet after the first
hint of fakery, like 5 minutes?

[Mark]

And, apparently, with only three people involved. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/14/2019 8:09 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/12/2019 3:28 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:09:56 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2019 9:48 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:15:44 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>>>> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
>>>>>> rods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where the hell did they go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, just maybe, the curtain rods didn't exist, it was just a cover
>>>>> story for what was really in the bag, the rifle. Don't expect CT'ers to
>>>>> buy that though, it makes too much sense and fits all the other evidence,
>>>>> something they're genetically incapable of comprehending.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no marks on the bag that indicate it held a rifle.
>>>
>>> There were no marks on the bag that indicate it held Oswald's supposed
>>> lunch either. So, what does that mean? The bag did contain fibers that
>>
>> It wasn't cjhecked for food. But they did find bags with chicken bnes in
>> them. Did they fingerprint those?
>> Did the fingerprint the soda bottles?
> Can you prove that they didn't fingerprint to lunch sack with the chicken bones or the soda bottle? Or, are you simply ASSuming that they weren't dusted?

The burden of proof is on you. I found no indication that they did. Can
you point to them in the WC? Oh, that' right, you've never even read the
WC. Can you Google? No, too hard?

I have to because you post so much nonsense.

>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't admit ANY fact.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your phony logic is proof of conspiracy. And WHO DUN IT.

[Anthony Marsh]

Living in your millionaire mansion you know nothing about real life. It's
not about breaking rods. There are different type of rods for different
types of curtains. The ones in his room were flimsy for flimsy curtains.
If he wanted to put in heavy curtains to block out the light he would need
to install heavier curtain rods to hold them. That is exactly what I had
to do when I moved into a rooming house. That's what poor people have to
do, but you millionaires never have to know about real life.

> He also left photos and negatives of the backyard photos among his
> possessions too. Hell, why did he leave the TSBD so quickly after the
> shooting and not stay around pretending to find out what happened?
>

Yeah, he tried that and almost hot shot by a cop.
Have you ever gotten shot by a cop for doing nothing?

> He took a series of actions before, during and after the assassination
> that just shout guilt.
>

Glad you don't work in the legal system. You would hang people without a
trial.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, how did he shoot JFK in the forehead?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif

> The only reasonable possibility is that maybe one or two other people
> knew what he was about to do (technically a conspiracy because it involved
> other people) but to this day, nothing of that kind has ever been proven
> or been shown to be necessary. All his actions were the result of what
> one person can carry out when he sets his mind to it.
>

Maybe one magician who can shoot from behind and also from the FRONT at
the same time. Can you demonstrate that for us?

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean like the CIA's Castro plots?

>> to be sure. If he was set up to be an unknowing patsy, it didn't work,
>> his actions indicate he knew what happened. A knowing patsy doesn't wash
>> either, he didn't take the fall, he denied everything.
>>
>> The only reasonable possibility is that maybe one or two other people
>> knew what he was about to do (technically a conspiracy because it involved
>> other people) but to this day, nothing of that kind has ever been proven
>> or been shown to be necessary. All his actions were the result of what
>> one person can carry out when he sets his mind to it.
>
> Well, an alternative explanation could be that he expected help escaping -
> a ride, an air flight - so he didn't bother on coming up with an alibi or
> destroying evidence since he was going to vanish. Or have help vanishing.
> And then he was left hanging.
>
> If I recall it correctly, this was one of the Garrison scenarios: LHO
> conspired with Ferrie and Shaw and others and then they abandoned him and
> left him to take the hit for the assassination. Of course, Garrison also
> believed that Shaw tried to get Oswald an attorney. So he wasn't really
> abandoning him. Garrison could argue it was round one day and then square
> the next.
>
> The more logical one is he expected to die. Suicide by assassination.
>

Then why didn't Baker shoot him? Didn't he get the memo?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, that one wasn't run by the CIA and covered up by the FBI.

[Anthony Marsh]

Would YOU chose Oswald to be part of YOUR conspiracy?

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you are admitting my point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Time. Enough time to take them back and put them in the unlocked garage.

[Anthony Marsh]

We know that the police always cover up.

>>> find them because that would be his alibi. Instead, he denied
>>> bringing ANY curtain rods to work or ANY long package when
>>> interrogated by the DPD. So
>>
>> No, he did not. We don't know exactly what he said.
>
> You mean besides the witnesses in the room and contemporaneous notes?
>

The wintesses who were wrong or lying. And people lying about the notes.
And people who misuse words in English. The notes were not taken DURING
the interrogation. They were written days later based on MEMORY.

[Anthony Marsh]

No jacket was reporet found in the TSBD that day. So according to your
logic it never existed.

> curtain rods were in the National Archives. How'd they get from the TSBD
> to the Archives as you claimed?
>

Not my problem.

> We need a paper trail. Some testimony. A document. Something. You got that?
>

Not always sometimes the paper tail is incomplete from the DPD and/or FBI.

> Of course you don't.
>
>
>> Neither did
>> he take his jacket. Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
>> one noticed them.
>
> MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???
>

Yes, when so much as been covered up.

You won't even try to explain the dent of the chrome topping. I was the
one who noticed that eh back of the rearview mirror was smashed in. That
explains why the bullet came from behind and destroys all the theories
about a HOLE in the windshield. And you didn't even thank me. All you can
do is attack like a pitbull.

> Hilarious.
>
> If nobody noticed them, how'd they get from under the jacket to the
> Archives as you previously asserted, Tony?
>

Some helpful person. How did the jacket get found?

>
>
>>
>>> Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
>>> the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after
>>
>> My argument does not need Oswald to take curtain rods out of the TSBD.
>
> Then they need to be discovered in the TSBD to get to the archives, where
> you claimed they were. Who discovered them there? Where can I find their
> testimony? A signed document for these curtain rods? Anything along those
> lines?
>

Silly, that would be like competent police work, not like the DPD.

>
>>
>>> the assassination, because Oswald's rifle was left behind in the
>>> Depository after the assassination as was the long paper bag bearing his
>>> print he used to bring the concealed rifle into the building.
>>>
>>> There's never been any curtain rods to recover because Oswald brought a
>>> rifle to the Depository, not any imaginary curtain rods.
>>>
>>
>> The bag that Frazier saw was too short to hold the Carcano.
>
> False assertion ... the correct assertion would be "Frazier's *estimate*
> of the length of the bag Frazier said he saw was too short to contain the
> Carcano, if Frazier's *estimate* was correct. However, the bag recovered
> in the TSBD bearing Oswald's print is long enough to contain the Carcano".
>
> And after calling Frazier an incompetent klutz here: "Who lied? Frazier?
> So what? I never said he was the mastermind. Just an incompetent Klutz"
> you're now relying on this *estimate* by this supposed *klutz* of the
> length of the package he saw to attempt to eliminate the rifle from
> Oswald's hand.
>

Did you run out of straw for your straw man argument? I did not
authorize you to speak for me.

> Conspiracy theorists always do that... they start out arguing Frazier's
> estimate is gospel and shouldn't be doubted, and then, when confronted
> with Frazier's testimony that Oswald said there were curtain rods in the
> package -- curtain rods that were never found -- wind up calling Frazier a
> liar or mistaken and pretend Oswald had nothing in his hands.
>

Not I. I wish I were allowed to sink to your level and say that ALL WC
defenders are as stupid and the stupidist one.

> Anything to avoid the reasonable conclusion that the rifle - the rifle
> that Oswald ordered, paid for, had shipped to his PO box and took
> possession of, leaving his prints on the weapon and photos of him behind
> holding that weapon -- was brought to the Depository by Oswald.
>
> Who else had access to the Depository and access to the Paine garage and
> knew Oswald's rifle was stored there? Anyone besides Oswald? By process of
> elimination, based on the available evidence, we can determine Oswald was
> the only person who could have brought the rifle from the Paine garage to
> the Depository.
>

DeM.
Emilio Santana.
CIA.

>
>> Do you even know that there were TWO bags in evidence?
>
> Yes. The second one was manufactured by the FBI from TSBD paper because
> the original was stained in the process of developing the fingerprints on
> the rifle. You're not going to trip me up by attempting to interject the
> logical fallacy of a red herring into the conversation.
>
> This is just a desperate attempt at a change of subject by you. We're
> talking about your claim that Oswald's curtain rods are in the archives.

I didn't say he owned them.

> Thus far you've offered no evidence of that, and argued above they in fact
> were never recovered ("Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> one noticed them").
>

So far you've ducked the question of how he carried the package.
One end under his arm pit and the other end cupped by his hand.
Try this at home and show us the pictures. I know of only one person in
this newsgroup who could do it and he doesn't own his own Carcano. Maybe
you could loan yours to him. It's called RESEARCH. Don't be scared.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/15/2019 7:50 PM, davide...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
>> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>>
>> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
>> leave.
>>
>> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
>> rods.
>>
>> Where the hell did they go?
>>
>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>
> Well, certainly you know the standard CT comeback to this - right? They'd
> ask you, "Who says so? Wesley Buell Frazier? Pfft!" Then they'll launch
> into how Frazier described Oswald carrying the package in a way that is
> inconsistent with the length of the disassembled rifle.
>
> Of course, on this matter of how Oswald carried the rifle - all one has to
> do is actually go through Wesley Frazier's testimony before the WC and
> it's quite evident he was not certain. He keeps repeating, over and over
> again, how he wasn't paying that close attention. And why would he?
>
> Now, back to the standard CT comeback for his testimony. By the time
> Frazier testified he was informed (by whom?) as to what he had to say. You

Are you saying that Frazier was part of the cover-up?

> see, "they" got to all these witnesses before they testified before the
> Commission and had them modify their stories to be consistent with the
> Commission's predetermined conclusion.
>

Have you bothered to listen to his interviews? He didn't think the bag was
long enough to hold the rifle. Try this at home. Hold the butt of your
Carcano cupped into your right palm and then put muzzle under your right
armpit. take some selfies to show us.

DO NOT PULL THE TRIGGER!

[Mark]

That's just not true. Baker had his revolver in hand because he was
thinking he just might run into an armed suspect. If Truly had not vouched
for Oswald, Baker wasn't going to shoot him. He would have tried to put
LHO in handcuffs and detain him for further questioning.

Mark

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

== QUOTE ==

Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you
notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or
lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle
brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and
bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid
around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor,
November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over
there.
Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with
Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I
checked that.
Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2019 11:15 PM, BOZ wrote:
> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>
> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> leave.
>

YOU are not authorized to speak for the conspiracy believers. Your
constant use of straw man arguments pegs you a a CIA disinformation agent.

> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> rods.
>
> Where the hell did they go?
>
> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
>
>

Who found his jacket at the TSBD? DPD, FBI, CIA, citizen?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Any evidence of this being done? No.

Any evidence curtain rods were found in the Depository? No.

Any evidence Oswald handled the curtain rods recovered from the garage?
No.

Any evidence the long package recovered on the sixth floor near the
sniper's nest that bore Oswald's print on it ever contained curtain rods?
No.

As I said below, your problem is evident, you have no evidence.

Conjecture? You are selling that at a discount.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 8:53:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

No response by you to these points.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So was his jacket, days later.
> >>>
> >>> So was his cardboard clip board.
> >>>
> >>> But unsurprisingly, no curtain rods ever turned up. Because there was none
> >>> to be found.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe some turned up but disappeared while in police or FBI custody.
> >
> > MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???
> >
> > Hilarious.
> >
> > If they 'disappeared', how'd they wind up in the archives as you claimed?
> > Where are they? The curtain rods you provided a picture of were recovered
> > from the Paine garage well after the assassination. Those curtain rods
> > weren't in police or FBI custody and 'disappeared'.

No response by you to these points.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> And no curtain rods seen carried by Oswald onto the bus, or into the cab,
> >>> or seen in his possession when he entered the rooming house.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I never said that Oswald took curtain rods out of the TSBD.
> >
> > I never said you did. But that's your problem, not mine.
> >
> > Focus, Tony.
> >
> > No curtain rods were reported found in the TSBD. You already said Oswald's
>
> No jacket was reporet found in the TSBD that day. So according to your
> logic it never existed.

Straw man argument. I never said that, and it's not my logic. It's your
silly logic, and you're trying to foist it on me.

The jacket existed.

It was recovered after about a week, when TSBD employees realized it was
probably Oswald's and it might be sought as evidence.

In contrast to that, there is no evidence that Oswald had curtain rods in
the long package he was seen in possession of by Frazier and Randle. There
are no curtain rods in the archives that were in Oswald's possession.

>
> > curtain rods were in the National Archives. How'd they get from the TSBD
> > to the Archives as you claimed?
> >
>
> Not my problem.

No, it most certainly is your problem. It's your claim the curtain rods in
the archives are the ones Oswald had the morning of the assassination when
seen by Frazier and Randle. You therefore need to support your assertion
with the evidence that indicates that. A flat assertion doesn't establish
anything of that nature.

The fact you try to claim support for this claim doesn't fall on your
shoulders ("not my problem"), when it's your claim, is beyond bizarre.
Your claim, your burden of proof.

>
> > We need a paper trail. Some testimony. A document. Something. You got that?
> >
>
> Not always sometimes the paper tail is incomplete from the DPD and/or FBI.

I'm asking if you have any evidence for your assertion that the curtain
rods you claim were in Oswald's possession the morning of the
assassination wound up in the archives as you claimed. You have yet to
provide any evidence supporting that assertion. You appear to be claiming
you could prove it if there was evidence of it, but the evidence that
proves the existence of the curtain rods doesn't exist at present.

That's what I thought. You have no evidence.

>
> > Of course you don't.
> >
> >
> >> Neither did
> >> he take his jacket. Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> >> one noticed them.
> >
> > MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???
> >
>
> Yes, when so much as been covered up.

You're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy where you imbed in
your argument that which must be proved. You're assuming the evidence
would be available to prove your assertion if it wasn't covered up.

That's not evidence. That's simply the logical fallacy of begging the
question by you.

At this point your argument appears to be "I can't provide the evidence,
but I could if they hadn't covered it up".

In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion, and it's all just
a big fat assumption by you.

>
> You won't even try to explain the dent of the chrome topping. I was the
> one who noticed that eh back of the rearview mirror was smashed in. That
> explains why the bullet came from behind and destroys all the theories
> about a HOLE in the windshield.

Change of subject. We're on to you.

> And you didn't even thank me. All you can
> do is attack like a pitbull.

Quoting Anthony Marsh: "Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an
argument just make personal attacks on your opponent."

That's another logical fallacy by you.

>
> > Hilarious.
> >
> > If nobody noticed them, how'd they get from under the jacket to the
> > Archives as you previously asserted, Tony?
> >
>
> Some helpful person. How did the jacket get found?

Can you document the 'helpful person' who found curtain rods under the
jacket? Were Oswald's supposed curtain rods he had on the morning of the
22nd assigned a Commission Exhibit number? The jacket recovered from the
TSBD was assigned CE163. Here's a picture of it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0273a.htm

I can establish the existence of the jacket. Can you establish the
existence of the curtain rods you claim Oswald had in his possession on
the morning of the 22nd?

No.

You can't prove they even existed, let alone that they were found in the
depository or wound up in the national archives. All of this - all of this
- is simply assumed by you.

Assumptions are not evidence.

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
> >>> the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after
> >>
> >> My argument does not need Oswald to take curtain rods out of the TSBD.
> >
> > Then they need to be discovered in the TSBD to get to the archives, where
> > you claimed they were. Who discovered them there? Where can I find their
> > testimony? A signed document for these curtain rods? Anything along those
> > lines?
> >
>
> Silly, that would be like competent police work, not like the DPD.

Begging the question once more. You again appear to be admitting you don't
have any evidence, but now it appears you're claiming you don't have the
evidence due to the incompetence of the DPD. Above you claimed it might
have been covered-up. Above that you claimed it might be missing due to
poor documentation on the part of the FBI or DPD.

Face it, no evidence is still no evidence.

And what you have is a great big pile of no evidence that you keep
pointing to as if it's meaningful. It doesn't matter how big a pile of no
evidence you got. It still is no evidence.

And you got an even bigger pile of excuses for why you have no evidence.

Just to be clear, in case you misunderstood: I'm asking for your evidence
Oswald had curtain rods on the morning of the 22nd that eventually wound
up in the archives, as you claimed. I am not asking for all your varying
excuses for why you can't provide that evidence.

> >
> >>
> >>> the assassination, because Oswald's rifle was left behind in the
> >>> Depository after the assassination as was the long paper bag bearing his
> >>> print he used to bring the concealed rifle into the building.
> >>>
> >>> There's never been any curtain rods to recover because Oswald brought a
> >>> rifle to the Depository, not any imaginary curtain rods.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The bag that Frazier saw was too short to hold the Carcano.
> >
> > False assertion ... the correct assertion would be "Frazier's *estimate*
> > of the length of the bag Frazier said he saw was too short to contain the
> > Carcano, if Frazier's *estimate* was correct. However, the bag recovered
> > in the TSBD bearing Oswald's print is long enough to contain the Carcano".
> >
> > And after calling Frazier an incompetent klutz here: "Who lied? Frazier?
> > So what? I never said he was the mastermind. Just an incompetent Klutz"
> > you're now relying on this *estimate* by this supposed *klutz* of the
> > length of the package he saw to attempt to eliminate the rifle from
> > Oswald's hand.
> >
> Did you run out of straw for your straw man argument? I did not
> authorize you to speak for me.

There is no straw man argument. I am simply contrasting your various
claims you've made here and asking you to explain how you reconcile
calling Frazier an incompetent klutz on the one hand and then citing his
estimate of the length of the package Oswald had on the other hand as if
Frazier couldn't make a mistake ("The bag that Frazier saw was too short
to hold the Carcano.")

We're all holding our breath waiting for you to explain why you believe
the man you called an incompetent klutz was infallible in estimating
lengths of packages, particularly the one in Oswald's possession that
morning.

C'mon Tony, surely you can explain this apparent contradiction in your
claims.

>
> > Conspiracy theorists always do that... they start out arguing Frazier's
> > estimate is gospel and shouldn't be doubted, and then, when confronted
> > with Frazier's testimony that Oswald said there were curtain rods in the
> > package -- curtain rods that were never found -- wind up calling Frazier a
> > liar or mistaken and pretend Oswald had nothing in his hands.
> >
>
> Not I. I wish I were allowed to sink to your level and say that ALL WC
> defenders are as stupid and the stupidist one.

Not my fault you can't reconcile your own various claims about the package
and about how good an eyewitness Frazier was. As I said, CTs either accept
Frazier estimate was solid and Oswald had only a 24 to 27 inch package, or
Frazier was an -- how'd you phrase it? - an incompetent klutz and Oswald
had nothing in his hands. They jump from one extreme to the other,
ignoring always the most reasonable conclusion ... that Oswald had a long
package in his possession that actually measured about 36 inches and
Frazier simply estimated it shorter than the actual length.

To CTs - including you - that's heresy. Why accept a reasonable conclusion
when you can flit between two mutually contradictory unreasonable ones?

>
> > Anything to avoid the reasonable conclusion that the rifle - the rifle
> > that Oswald ordered, paid for, had shipped to his PO box and took
> > possession of, leaving his prints on the weapon and photos of him behind
> > holding that weapon -- was brought to the Depository by Oswald.
> >
> > Who else had access to the Depository and access to the Paine garage and
> > knew Oswald's rifle was stored there? Anyone besides Oswald? By process of
> > elimination, based on the available evidence, we can determine Oswald was
> > the only person who could have brought the rifle from the Paine garage to
> > the Depository.
> >
>
> DeM.
> Emilio Santana.
> CIA.

Demohrenschilt had access to the Depository and the Paine garage on the
22nd of November, 1963? My understanding he was in Haiti at that time, so
I'm going to challenge you on that claim as well. Please post the support
for your claim. I'd love for you to provide the evidence for any of the
above named having access to the Paine garage and the TSBD but of course,
you don't have any evidence for that, either.

If anything, it will no doubt be more of the "the conspiracy dogs ate my
evidence" that you've argued for thus far, offering up excuses for why you
can't provide the evidence.

>
> >
> >> Do you even know that there were TWO bags in evidence?
> >
> > Yes. The second one was manufactured by the FBI from TSBD paper because
> > the original was stained in the process of developing the fingerprints on
> > the rifle. You're not going to trip me up by attempting to interject the
> > logical fallacy of a red herring into the conversation.
> >
> > This is just a desperate attempt at a change of subject by you. We're
> > talking about your claim that Oswald's curtain rods are in the archives.
> I didn't say he owned them.

Focus, Tony. Neither did I. When I wrote, "your claim that Oswald's
curtain rods are in the archives" I am talking about the curtain rods
supposedly within the long package he was seen with the morning of the
assassination. I am not presuming ownership of curtain rods I don't
believe existed. I am asking you once more to provide the evidence that
there are curtain rods in the national archives that were earlier in the
possession of Oswald within the long package he was seen in possession of
on the morning of 11/22/63.

Either you have such evidence or you don't. It appears you don't.

It's okay. You can admit you don't have any such evidencce.

>
> > Thus far you've offered no evidence of that, and argued above they in fact
> > were never recovered ("Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> > one noticed them").
> >
>
> So far you've ducked the question of how he carried the package.
> One end under his arm pit and the other end cupped by his hand.

Sorry, no. This is just a desperate attempt to change the subject and
shift the burden of proof.

You made a claim. You either can support the claim or you can't. It
appears you can't.

Trying to change the subject to how Oswald carried the package isn't going
to fly here. I don't have to respond to your attempts at changing the
subject.

Where's the evidence to support your claim that Oswald had curtain rods in
the package on the morning of the assassination, and those curtain rods
are in the archives?

You either have such evidence or you don't.

> Try this at home and show us the pictures. I know of only one person in
> this newsgroup who could do it and he doesn't own his own Carcano. Maybe
> you could loan yours to him. It's called RESEARCH. Don't be scared.

Quoting Anthony Marsh: "Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an
argument just make personal attacks on your opponent."

[Mark]

I think you have blown both doors off of Tony's jerry-rigged CT Jalopy.

Mark

[InsideSparta]

Game. Set. Match.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you're either a mind reeader or an expert on Dallas cops? Maybe he
ASSuMEd that he got there quickly enough to catch the shooter on the top
floor still armed with the rifle ready to shoot his way out. Would he
automatically shoot the first person he saw in the lunch room eating
lunch?

[Anthony Marsh]

In this case we don't always have the direct evidence.
Because we were not lucky enough to find it or it was destroyed.
So we have to make du with evidence we have and put the pieces of the
puzzle together. YOU Assume that Oswald brought in a rifle.
You have no direct evidence of that.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have many times, while YOU refuse to answer my direct questions.
You think you can bully your way around here.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back too hard.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Projection, Tony. You're accusing me of doing exactly what you're doing.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

False Pee-Wee Herman.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [1]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> His rifle was found in the TSBD.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So was his jacket, days later.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So was his cardboard clip board.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But unsurprisingly, no curtain rods ever turned up. Because there was none
> >>>>>>> to be found.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe some turned up but disappeared while in police or FBI custody.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hilarious.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they 'disappeared', how'd they wind up in the archives as you claimed?
> >>>>> Where are they? The curtain rods you provided a picture of were recovered
> >>>>> from the Paine garage well after the assassination. Those curtain rods
> >>>>> weren't in police or FBI custody and 'disappeared'.
> >>>
> >>> No response by you to these points.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [2]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And no curtain rods seen carried by Oswald onto the bus, or into the cab,
> >>>>>>> or seen in his possession when he entered the rooming house.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I never said that Oswald took curtain rods out of the TSBD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I never said you did. But that's your problem, not mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Focus, Tony.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No curtain rods were reported found in the TSBD. You already said Oswald's
> >>>>
> >>>> No jacket was reporet found in the TSBD that day. So according to your
> >>>> logic it never existed.
> >>>
> >>> Straw man argument. I never said that, and it's not my logic. It's your
> >>> silly logic, and you're trying to foist it on me.
> >>>
> >>> The jacket existed.
> >>>
> >>> It was recovered after about a week, when TSBD employees realized it was
> >>> probably Oswald's and it might be sought as evidence.
> >>>
> >>> In contrast to that, there is no evidence that Oswald had curtain rods in
> >>> the long package he was seen in possession of by Frazier and Randle. There
> >>> are no curtain rods in the archives that were in Oswald's possession.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [3]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> curtain rods were in the National Archives. How'd they get from the TSBD
> >>>>> to the Archives as you claimed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not my problem.
> >>>
> >>> No, it most certainly is your problem. It's your claim the curtain rods in
> >>> the archives are the ones Oswald had the morning of the assassination when
> >>> seen by Frazier and Randle. You therefore need to support your assertion
> >>> with the evidence that indicates that. A flat assertion doesn't establish
> >>> anything of that nature.
> >>>
> >>> The fact you try to claim support for this claim doesn't fall on your
> >>> shoulders ("not my problem"), when it's your claim, is beyond bizarre.
> >>> Your claim, your burden of proof.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [4]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> We need a paper trail. Some testimony. A document. Something. You got that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not always sometimes the paper tail is incomplete from the DPD and/or FBI.
> >>>
> >>> I'm asking if you have any evidence for your assertion that the curtain
> >>> rods you claim were in Oswald's possession the morning of the
> >>> assassination wound up in the archives as you claimed. You have yet to
> >>> provide any evidence supporting that assertion. You appear to be claiming
> >>> you could prove it if there was evidence of it, but the evidence that
> >>> proves the existence of the curtain rods doesn't exist at present.
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought. You have no evidence.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [5]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course you don't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Neither did
> >>>>>> he take his jacket. Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> >>>>>> one noticed them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MAYBE??? That's the best you can do? MAYBE???
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, when so much as been covered up.
> >>>
> >>> You're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy where you imbed in
> >>> your argument that which must be proved. You're assuming the evidence
> >>> would be available to prove your assertion if it wasn't covered up.
> >>>
> >>> That's not evidence. That's simply the logical fallacy of begging the
> >>> question by you.
> >>>
> >>> At this point your argument appears to be "I can't provide the evidence,
> >>> but I could if they hadn't covered it up".
> >>>
> >>> In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion, and it's all just
> >>> a big fat assumption by you.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [6]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You won't even try to explain the dent of the chrome topping. I was the
> >>>> one who noticed that eh back of the rearview mirror was smashed in. That
> >>>> explains why the bullet came from behind and destroys all the theories
> >>>> about a HOLE in the windshield.
> >>>
> >>> Change of subject. We're on to you.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [7]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> And you didn't even thank me. All you can
> >>>> do is attack like a pitbull.
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Anthony Marsh: "Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an
> >>> argument just make personal attacks on your opponent."
> >>>
> >>> That's another logical fallacy by you.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [8]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hilarious.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If nobody noticed them, how'd they get from under the jacket to the
> >>>>> Archives as you previously asserted, Tony?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Some helpful person. How did the jacket get found?
> >>>
> >>> Can you document the 'helpful person' who found curtain rods under the
> >>> jacket? Were Oswald's supposed curtain rods he had on the morning of the
> >>> 22nd assigned a Commission Exhibit number? The jacket recovered from the
> >>> TSBD was assigned CE163. Here's a picture of it:
> >>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0273a.htm
> >>>
> >>> I can establish the existence of the jacket. Can you establish the
> >>> existence of the curtain rods you claim Oswald had in his possession on
> >>> the morning of the 22nd?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>> You can't prove they even existed, let alone that they were found in the
> >>> depository or wound up in the national archives. All of this - all of this
> >>> - is simply assumed by you.
> >>>
> >>> Assumptions are not evidence.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [9]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your argument goes nowhere. Oswald wasn't seen with any long package after
> >>>>>>> the assassination, and curtain rods weren't found in the Depository after
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My argument does not need Oswald to take curtain rods out of the TSBD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then they need to be discovered in the TSBD to get to the archives, where
> >>>>> you claimed they were. Who discovered them there? Where can I find their
> >>>>> testimony? A signed document for these curtain rods? Anything along those
> >>>>> lines?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Silly, that would be like competent police work, not like the DPD.
> >>>
> >>> Begging the question once more. You again appear to be admitting you don't
> >>> have any evidence, but now it appears you're claiming you don't have the
> >>> evidence due to the incompetence of the DPD. Above you claimed it might
> >>> have been covered-up. Above that you claimed it might be missing due to
> >>> poor documentation on the part of the FBI or DPD.
> >>>
> >>> Face it, no evidence is still no evidence.
> >>>
> >>> And what you have is a great big pile of no evidence that you keep
> >>> pointing to as if it's meaningful. It doesn't matter how big a pile of no
> >>> evidence you got. It still is no evidence.
> >>>
> >>> And you got an even bigger pile of excuses for why you have no evidence.
> >>>
> >>> Just to be clear, in case you misunderstood: I'm asking for your evidence
> >>> Oswald had curtain rods on the morning of the 22nd that eventually wound
> >>> up in the archives, as you claimed. I am not asking for all your varying
> >>> excuses for why you can't provide that evidence.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [10]

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [11]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Conspiracy theorists always do that... they start out arguing Frazier's
> >>>>> estimate is gospel and shouldn't be doubted, and then, when confronted
> >>>>> with Frazier's testimony that Oswald said there were curtain rods in the
> >>>>> package -- curtain rods that were never found -- wind up calling Frazier a
> >>>>> liar or mistaken and pretend Oswald had nothing in his hands.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not I. I wish I were allowed to sink to your level and say that ALL WC
> >>>> defenders are as stupid and the stupidist one.
> >>>
> >>> Not my fault you can't reconcile your own various claims about the package
> >>> and about how good an eyewitness Frazier was. As I said, CTs either accept
> >>> Frazier estimate was solid and Oswald had only a 24 to 27 inch package, or
> >>> Frazier was an -- how'd you phrase it? - an incompetent klutz and Oswald
> >>> had nothing in his hands. They jump from one extreme to the other,
> >>> ignoring always the most reasonable conclusion ... that Oswald had a long
> >>> package in his possession that actually measured about 36 inches and
> >>> Frazier simply estimated it shorter than the actual length.
> >>>
> >>> To CTs - including you - that's heresy. Why accept a reasonable conclusion
> >>> when you can flit between two mutually contradictory unreasonable ones?
> >>>

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [12]

> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anything to avoid the reasonable conclusion that the rifle - the rifle
> >>>>> that Oswald ordered, paid for, had shipped to his PO box and took
> >>>>> possession of, leaving his prints on the weapon and photos of him behind
> >>>>> holding that weapon -- was brought to the Depository by Oswald.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who else had access to the Depository and access to the Paine garage and
> >>>>> knew Oswald's rifle was stored there? Anyone besides Oswald? By process of
> >>>>> elimination, based on the available evidence, we can determine Oswald was
> >>>>> the only person who could have brought the rifle from the Paine garage to
> >>>>> the Depository.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DeM.
> >>>> Emilio Santana.
> >>>> CIA.
> >>>
> >>> Demohrenschilt had access to the Depository and the Paine garage on the
> >>> 22nd of November, 1963? My understanding he was in Haiti at that time, so
> >>> I'm going to challenge you on that claim as well. Please post the support
> >>> for your claim. I'd love for you to provide the evidence for any of the
> >>> above named having access to the Paine garage and the TSBD but of course,
> >>> you don't have any evidence for that, either.
> >>>
> >>> If anything, it will no doubt be more of the "the conspiracy dogs ate my
> >>> evidence" that you've argued for thus far, offering up excuses for why you
> >>> can't provide the evidence.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [13]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you even know that there were TWO bags in evidence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes. The second one was manufactured by the FBI from TSBD paper because
> >>>>> the original was stained in the process of developing the fingerprints on
> >>>>> the rifle. You're not going to trip me up by attempting to interject the
> >>>>> logical fallacy of a red herring into the conversation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is just a desperate attempt at a change of subject by you. We're
> >>>>> talking about your claim that Oswald's curtain rods are in the archives.
> >>>> I didn't say he owned them.
> >>>
> >>> Focus, Tony. Neither did I. When I wrote, "your claim that Oswald's
> >>> curtain rods are in the archives" I am talking about the curtain rods
> >>> supposedly within the long package he was seen with the morning of the
> >>> assassination. I am not presuming ownership of curtain rods I don't
> >>> believe existed. I am asking you once more to provide the evidence that
> >>> there are curtain rods in the national archives that were earlier in the
> >>> possession of Oswald within the long package he was seen in possession of
> >>> on the morning of 11/22/63.
> >>>
> >>> Either you have such evidence or you don't. It appears you don't.
> >>>
> >>> It's okay. You can admit you don't have any such evidencce.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [14]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thus far you've offered no evidence of that, and argued above they in fact
> >>>>> were never recovered ("Maybe the curtain rods were under the jacket and no
> >>>>> one noticed them").
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So far you've ducked the question of how he carried the package.
> >>>> One end under his arm pit and the other end cupped by his hand.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, no. This is just a desperate attempt to change the subject and
> >>> shift the burden of proof.
> >>>
> >>> You made a claim. You either can support the claim or you can't. It
> >>> appears you can't.
> >>>
> >>> Trying to change the subject to how Oswald carried the package isn't going
> >>> to fly here. I don't have to respond to your attempts at changing the
> >>> subject.
> >>>
> >>> Where's the evidence to support your claim that Oswald had curtain rods in
> >>> the package on the morning of the assassination, and those curtain rods
> >>> are in the archives?
> >>>
> >>> You either have such evidence or you don't.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [15]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Try this at home and show us the pictures. I know of only one person in
> >>>> this newsgroup who could do it and he doesn't own his own Carcano. Maybe
> >>>> you could loan yours to him. It's called RESEARCH. Don't be scared.
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Anthony Marsh: "Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an
> >>> argument just make personal attacks on your opponent."

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [16]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If they were never recovered, how could they be in the archives, Tony?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your pretenses here are just that. Pretenses. They have no basis in
> >>>>> reality.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [17]

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your pretense to the contrary is just that. Pretense.

*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY* [18]

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hank
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have many times, while YOU refuse to answer my direct questions.
> >> You think you can bully your way around here.
> >
> > Projection, Tony. You're accusing me of doing exactly what you're doing.
> >
> > Hank
> >
>
>
> False Pee-Wee Herman.

Anyone can read this post and see exactly who is refusing to answer the
other's direct questions. It isn't me dodging your points, Tony.

To aid in that regard, I've gone back through the post and insert the
marker "*ARGUMENT DROPPED BY TONY*" after each of my points you failed to
respond to.

I've also numbered each time you failed to respond to my point thus [n],
where 'n' increments by one for each time you failed to respond to my
point.

I count 18 instances of you failing to respond to my points.

How many times above did I fail to respond to your points?

NONE.

Hank

[BOZ]

With people like Tony Marsh it is no wonder that the retarded O J Simpson
jury found Orenthal James not guilty of murder.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Go to any conspiracy site and look up the discussion of the "curtain rods"
issue/question.

Nearly every single conspiracy advocate - no matter how extreme or
moderate, no matter how sensible (some can be more reasonable than others)
- will insist he had curtain rods with him. And most will say they found
rods in the Paine garage and therefore, for some reason, that's evidence
he brought them to work. How are rods found back in a garage in Ft. Worth
evidence they were brought to a building in Dallas?

It's just completely illogical.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. They knew he was guilty. They were punishing the prosecution for
its mishandling of evidence. Didn't you learn anything. I know Simpson was
guilty that moment I heard about the murders. So did my black teammate.
But I don't think the cops should get away with tampering with evidence.
You do.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. You don't get out much and you have not talked to many
conspiracy beleivers. You don't even realize that some conspiracy believer
think that Oswald was guilty.

> - will insist he had curtain rods with him. And most will say they found
> rods in the Paine garage and therefore, for some reason, that's evidence
> he brought them to work. How are rods found back in a garage in Ft. Worth
> evidence they were brought to a building in Dallas?
>

Michael Paine did not know exactly how many curtain rods were in the
garage.

> It's just completely illogical.
>
>

Yes, you are.

[BOZ]

The cops did not tamper with evidence. Three people left blood at the
murder scene. Nicole Simpson. Ron Goldman. The killer. The cops collected
blood from OJ the next day and compared his blood to the blood found at
the murder scene. Guess who? Did mark Fuhrman plant OJ Simpson's size 12
Bruno Magli shoeprint at the murder scene. I'm getting sick of your
factual impairment. You do not know the case.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

And in a not-unexpected development, Tony Marsh, who early accused me of
ignoring his points, ignored entirely my post where I pointed 18 --
eighteen -- points I made that he ignored entirely, and chooses to respond
to a minor point about O.J.Simpson instead.

I'm not surprised.

Hank

[Mark]

I'm still hearing nothing but crickets from out in the marshlands. Mark

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:15:44 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> According to Oswald: Oswald entered the TSBD with Carcano curtain rods.
>
> After the grassy knoll shooter (Lucien Sartie) shot JFK Oswald decided to
> leave.
>
> When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater he did not have the curtain
> rods.
>

> Where the hell did they go?
>

> His rifle was found in the TSBD.

I'm sure I'm not the only one with an unpublishable suggestion as to where
those curtain rods can go.

[Mark]

Marsh's attempted double-dealing with the facts about the curtain rods in
the National Archives could almost be labeled with the F-word. Fraud.
But surely he wouldn't go that far to try to save his crumbling conspiracy
theories . . . Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

FFI, it's still a conspiracy whether Oswald fired a shot or not.

[Mark]

That's an interesting non-answer to my post.

Interesting because if someone alleged I was purposely ignoring known
facts about the assassination, those would be fighting words and I would
provide a detailed answer. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

I just wanted to let you know that fact in case you never thought of it.

> Interesting because if someone alleged I was purposely ignoring known
> facts about the assassination, those would be fighting words and I would
> provide a detailed answer. Mark
>

You never do.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, It's not. You're just begging the question... committing the logical
fallacy of putting into your claim the very point you must prove.

Prove it was a conspiracy. You don't just get to make the assertion and
pretend it's fact.

It's not.

Hank