Curtain rods

[Bruce]

What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

Google is your friend, Bruce....

[Bruce]

Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?

[Hank Sienzant]

Yes. It’s faith-based. No doubt is allowed. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You are supposed to accept on faith that there is a conspiracy and not question the conspiracy’s existence.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

I've had issues with lone nut loons for over 50 years! What praytell, does anyone use curtain rods for, is it a big, fat secret?

Do you have issues with Google? here you go, curtain rods LHO <enter>

[healyd...@gmail.com]

sitdown Hank, you're making a damn fool out of yourself.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:42:40 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

Here’s the problem. For a conspiracy theorist there is no easy answer to your question.

If Oswald had curtain rods in the long package, why would he deny bringing a long package that day?
Oswald claimed in his interrogation sessions that there was no long package, just his lunch. Meanwhile, Frazier told the police that Oswald had told him there were curtain rods in the long package.

If Oswald had curtain rods, he could have led the police to the curtain rods, and say, this is what I brought! But he didn’t do that.

And the police knew there was a long package recovered from the snipers nest corner where three shells were found. And where numerous witnesses saw a rifle or a man with a rifle. And Oswald’s print was found on that bag. And a rifle was found on that floor. They also knew the estimates were too short, because the found bag was 38 inches.

So it became obvious to the DPD that Oswald’s claim there was no long package brought to the Depository that morning was not true. They had the physical evidence of the rifle and the paper bag in evidence.

Conspiracy theorists try to get around this problem by claiming Oswald was telling the truth and everybody else was lying. The bag was forged to frame Oswald, the bag was too short, Frazier was intimidated into the long package story, so was his sister, and we enter the Twilight Zone with this one: Some CT claimed Oswald admitted to the long package and the police tried to make Oswald look guilty by making up Oswald’s denials of the long package!

My response to that has always been, if they were going to put words in Oswald’s mouth, why not make up an admission that Oswald confessed?

That’s why no CT wants to man up and discuss the the long package Oswald was seen with.

[Hank Sienzant]

No answers from Healy. Just ad hominem. As expected.

[Steven Galbraith]

If they're going to shoot him through Ruby to silence him, they can later say he admitted to killing JFK. He's dead, he can't deny it. Remember, in conspiracy world they can do anything. Except say he confessed.
There are a thousand-and-one things they could have done to frame him. As in: force/coerce his co-workers to say they saw him with a large package at work that day or that he expressed hatred towards JFK. Force Williams to say he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest when he went to the 6th floor to eat his lunch. Get Marina and Ruth Paine to say they saw him with the large package. Get the Paines to say Oswald said he hated JFK. Hell, get six witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald in the window with the rifle. Remember, the conspiracy claim is that the witnesses in the Tippit shooting were all liars or coerced into lying about seeing Oswald shoot Tippit. But they weren't smart enough to coerce witnesses into saying they saw him shoot JFK? It makes no sense.
On and on and on. The conspiracy believers don't like these type of points. If they had to consider them then a type of conspiracy "cognitive dissonance" follows and so they flee them.

[Bruce]

There's no need to call people names. I think that a discussion forum on this case can go much deeper than Google search results. After apparently 50 years of studying the case, I'm surprised you'd be so dismissive of key details in it.

Yes, obviously people use curtain rods to hang curtains. But his room, according to his landlady Gladys Johnson, didn't need any and he never asked her for any. So what use does he in specific have for a new set?

Adding to this that Oswald is a major cheapskate (11/22/63 is apparently the first time he even took a cab) why would he buy something that he doesn't need?

Whether you have an answer to these questions or not, they're surely relevant to what happened that day, aren't they?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Your lack of self-awareness is amazing. You fancy yourself as some sort of "insider" JFK expert because decades ago in Duluth, Minnesota, you presented a rambling, incoherent talk on Zapruder film alteration, where, not surprisingly, you didn't really talk much about how the Zapruder film could be altered. (Photographic matting was your conclusion? Hilarious.) Total garbage, and one could almost feel how awkward the guests felt, who tragically were subjected to your childish hobby points, staring at their watches and squirming in their seats with obvious embarrassment for you. I'm sure the symposium ringleader, the discredited kook, Professor James Fetzer, was embarrassed, too, and remember, this is a guy who thinks Sandy Hook was faked and that planted demolition charges took down the towers on 9/11.

The definition for the term Dunning-Kruger effect was developed precisely to describe people like you.

You've repeatedly referred to JFK as John FRANCIS Kennedy.

You frequently mix up the date or year of JFK's assassination. Just the other day, you wrote that JFK died in 1964.

Not too long ago, you mixed up the identity of Tom Rossley--someone you knew and who'd posted here for around two decades--with that of Tom Lowry, who hasn't posted here in almost a decade and who tormented you with crude, pornographic Photo Bucket memes and cruel posts filled with vile language aimed at you and your daughter Chandra. How you could mix the identities up of those two is a remarkable feat in memory collapse. You're definitely suffering some sort of age-related cognitive decline. You make Joe Biden look sharp.

We all make posting mistakes, but there's something extra with your mistakes. You combine a lack of awareness about your own rather limited abilities with a profound inability to post anything cogent, as you veer off in one strange direction after another, with disjointed stream-of-consciousness thoughts married to spelling mistakes and grammatical errors a second grader wouldn't make.

On top of all of that, you're good for "retiring" from the "JFK research community" about once a year, inflicting upon us a maudlin couple of paragraphs thanking your fellow critics for hearing your "published ideas" about the JFK assassination. You're a regular Rhodes scholar, Healy. Two days later, you're back posting the same loopy nothings. As Barb Junkkarinen once wrote when you made some facetious little remark regarding an article she co-authored debunking the shot through the JFK limo windshield, she got your number a long time ago. Well, we have your number here, too. Good grief.

How about another speech retiring from the board again? We could all use a few laughs.

((!!**HICCUP**!!))

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 10:13:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:48:44 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> > > > > What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
> > > > Google is your friend, Bruce....
> > > Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
> > I've had issues with lone nut loons for over 50 years! What praytell, does anyone use curtain rods for, is it a big, fat secret?
> >
> > Do you have issues with Google? here you go, curtain rods LHO <enter>
> There's no need to call people names. I think that a discussion forum on this case can go much deeper than Google search results. After apparently 50 years of studying the case, I'm surprised you'd be so dismissive of key details in it.

I’m not. It’s a losing proposition for CTs, and he’s been around long enough to know that.

>
> Yes, obviously people use curtain rods to hang curtains. But his room, according to his landlady Gladys Johnson, didn't need any and he never asked her for any. So what use does he in specific have for a new set?

Tony Marsh had a theory (undocumented, of course) that Oswald planned to rent a new apartment for his family and the new place would of course need curtain rods. So TM’s theory was Oswald stole some from the Paine garage, but didn’t want to admit the theft to the police, so he denied having a package of curtain rods to the police.

Of course, as any reasonable person can understand, if the alternative is to be accused of the assassination, you admit the theft and show the police the curtain rods.

The Commission’s investigation determined Ruth Paine denied any curtain rods were missing from her garage, pretty much cutting off Marsh’s theory at the knees, but I’m certain it won’t surprise you to learn that didn’t change TM’s opinion any.

>
> Adding to this that Oswald is a major cheapskate (11/22/63 is apparently the first time he even took a cab) why would he buy something that he doesn't need?

He was poor, not a cheapskate. I prefer describing him as frugal. Unless you’ve ever been down to your last dime (I have), it’s tough to understand some of his decisions. Taking a cab is a luxury to someone living on the edge of their finances. I once walked over three miles (and three back home) to get to a library where I could look at the want ads in the current newspaper because I could neither afford a bus ride nor a newspaper purchase.

>
> Whether you have an answer to these questions or not, they're surely relevant to what happened that day, aren't they?

They are, which is why CTs don’t want to discuss them.

[Ben Holmes]

Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
*YOU* are asking critics?

[Hank Sienzant]

Are YOU willing to answer the above question originally posed? You haven’t yet.

Curious then that you avoid doing so and instead immediately attempt to shift the burden to Bruce answering your begged and loaded questions. We know your routine, Ben. Bruce may not.

But it’s been demonstrated repeatedly on these boards. You’ll ignore or delete anything you can’t answer and just double-down on your unproven assertions imbedded in your begged questions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:43:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
>>>
>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
>>
>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
>> *YOU* are asking critics?
>
>Are YOU willing to answer the above question originally posed? You haven’t yet.

ROTFLMAO!!!

I must say, I enjoy when believers pretend that critics can't answer
something.

Let's trade... I'll go into extreme detail on the above question, just
as soon as you respond in detail to this:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Do we have a deal?

> Curious then that you avoid doing so and instead immediately attempt
> to shift the burden to Bruce answering your begged and loaded
> questions. We know your routine, Ben. Bruce may not.

This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Huckster whines that I'm not
answering a question - BUT THAT'S ALL BELIEVERS EVER DO - ASK
QUESTIONS... they're terrified of answering them.

Notice folks, that Huckster has no problem at all with Bruce ignoring
any questions...

LFD.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 10:55:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:43:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> >> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
> >>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
> >>>
> >>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
> >>
> >> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
> >> *YOU* are asking critics?
> >
> >Are YOU willing to answer the above question originally posed? You haven’t yet.
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> I must say, I enjoy when believers pretend that critics can't answer
> something.

We don’t have to pretend. We see it in almost every post by every CT.
You didn’t answer, you pretend I have jump through a hoop before you answer.

>
> Let's trade... I'll go into extreme detail on the above question, just
> as soon as you respond in detail to this:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>
> Do we have a deal?

The logical fallacy of changing the subject.

You have to respond to all the points I made on Mark Lane #1 through #140 instead of deleting all my points therein and calling me a liar and a coward.

> > Curious then that you avoid doing so and instead immediately attempt
> > to shift the burden to Bruce answering your begged and loaded
> > questions. We know your routine, Ben. Bruce may not.

> This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Huckster whines that I'm not
> answering a question - BUT THAT'S ALL BELIEVERS EVER DO - ASK
> QUESTIONS... they're terrified of answering them.

I’ve answered plenty, citing the evidence and making arguments supporting my contentions. What you’ve done is delete those points time after time. Gil started a whole new thread with his points reposted instead of respond to my points here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ

Gil ran to a new thread here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cmnSi0VCOcE/m/91oxO9KWBQAJ

You’re now running here and we can see it in black and white.

>
> Notice folks, that Huckster has no problem at all with Bruce ignoring
> any questions...

Straw man argument.


>
> LFD.

Ben code for “commence running”

[Bruce]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

I don't claim to have all the answers or know whether Oswald's guilty, but if you've got a question I can try to answer it. So far, nobody in this thread has even tried to answer the original question which seems like a very important one to the CT case.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ben Holmes has settled on the idea that Oswald bought his lunch to work in the long bag. Perhaps it was an extremely long sub sandwich. Ben has clammed up about it, however.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:23:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 10:55:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:43:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
>>>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
>>>> *YOU* are asking critics?
>>>
>>>Are YOU willing to answer the above question originally posed? You haven’t yet.
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>> I must say, I enjoy when believers pretend that critics can't answer
>> something.

LFD.

>> Let's trade... I'll go into extreme detail on the above question, just
>> as soon as you respond in detail to this:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>
>> Do we have a deal?
>

>The logical fallacy ..


Nope. If *this* is a logical fallacy, then your existing claim is.

You cannot demand that I answer a question, and refuse to answer mine
(claiming it's a logical fallacy)


You're a coward, Huckster Sienzant.

>>> Curious then that you avoid doing so and instead immediately attempt
>>> to shift the burden to Bruce answering your begged and loaded
>>> questions. We know your routine, Ben. Bruce may not.
>
>> This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Huckster whines that I'm not
>> answering a question - BUT THAT'S ALL BELIEVERS EVER DO - ASK
>> QUESTIONS... they're terrified of answering them.
>
>I’ve answered plenty,

LFD.

>> Notice folks, that Huckster has no problem at all with Bruce ignoring
>> any questions...
>>

>> LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:48:13 -0800 (PST), Bruce

It's becoming quite clear that you're simply another believer... and
believers are notorious for asking questions, but never answering
them.

So let's see where you stand:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Did Huckster Sienzant lie... or tell the truth?

[Hank Sienzant]

I tried to answer it here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AMjbVtLMimw/m/f6ou08pqBQAJ

And here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AMjbVtLMimw/m/tUX1htiRBQAJ

No one speaks for all CTs, so I gave the best answer I could based on my experience debating the case for the past 30 years online while trying to stay with the confines of your question.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hilarious! You just asked him a question (changing the subject in the process) while failing to answer his original question. You’re doing exactly what you claim others are guilty of.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:55:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:48:14 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
>>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
>>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
>>> *YOU* are asking critics?
>
>> I don't claim to have all the answers or know whether Oswald's guilty, but if you've got a question I can try to answer it. So far, nobody in this thread has even tried to answer the original question which seems like a very important one to the CT case.
>

>Ben Holmes has settled...

Chuckles is TERRIFIED of quoting or citing me.

[Ben Holmes]

You find it funny that you lied, and refuse to answer?

> You just asked him a question (changing the subject in the process)
> while failing to answer his original question. You’re doing exactly
> what you claim others are guilty of.

Are you a moron, Huckster? I've made it quite clear that I provide
answers to any evidential question in this case TO THOSE WHO DO THE
SAME.

If someone wants to ask me questions, I want to first ensure that they
are interesting in answering questions as well.

It's not a one way street... and you're a moron to suggest that it is.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Haha!

Here ya go, from the Benny Tracker series:

91.) On February 26th 2019 at the 'Steve's A Moron...' thread, Ben--in response to a question about what Oswald had in the long bag he carried to work that morning--has finally settled on an answer. See below:

Question: "And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?"

Ben: "His lunch."

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:44:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:19:28 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:55:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:48:14 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
>>>>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
>>>>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
>>>>> *YOU* are asking critics?
>>>
>>>> I don't claim to have all the answers or know whether Oswald's guilty, but if you've got a question I can try to answer it. So far, nobody in this thread has even tried to answer the original question which seems like a very important one to the CT case.
>>>
>>>Ben Holmes has settled...
>>
>> Chuckles is TERRIFIED of quoting or citing me.
>
>Haha!
>
>Here ya go, from the Benny Tracker series:

Do you understand the concept of quoting, or citing?

I don't want what *YOU* claim I said, I want what I actually said.

[Hank Sienzant]

I find it funny that you have to resort to logical fallacies (like three pointed out previously that you deleted) and the new logical fallacies like begging the question and straw man arguments.

> > You just asked him a question (changing the subject in the process)
> > while failing to answer his original question. You’re doing exactly
> > what you claim others are guilty of.
> Are you a moron, Huckster? I've made it quite clear that I provide
> answers to any evidential question in this case TO THOSE WHO DO THE
> SAME.

Ad hominem.

>
> If someone wants to ask me questions, I want to first ensure that they
> are interesting in answering questions as well.

What if he has the same standard? Don’t you have to go first?


> don’t

> It's not a one way street... and you're a moron to suggest that it is.

Hilarious!

What if I have the same standard, and am awaiting your responses to about 40 Mark Lane #whatever?

Your standard is just an excuse to avoid answering questions by asking others to jump through hoops first.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:00:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>>> You just asked him a question (changing the subject in the process)
>>> while failing to answer his original question. You’re doing exactly
>>> what you claim others are guilty of.
>>
>> Are you a moron, Huckster? I've made it quite clear that I provide
>> answers to any evidential question in this case TO THOSE WHO DO THE
>> SAME.
>
>Ad hominem.

That you're a moron is, but the facts still remain.

>> If someone wants to ask me questions, I want to first ensure that they
>> are interesting in answering questions as well.
>
>What if he has the same standard? Don’t you have to go first?

As critics are well known for answering any and all questions, and
believers are well known for running away, no.

A believer has the burden.

>> don’t
>> It's not a one way street... and you're a moron to suggest that it is.
>
>Hilarious!

Laugh all you want... it's turning into a cackle.


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

[Bruce]

I answered Ben's big question about Jack Dougherty here https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/by7-FtcXsfM now, how about something on those curtain rods? Or is it only a one way street, where you get to pose questions without answering them?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:27:22 -0800 (PST), Bruce

>I answered ...


Naw... you ran.

[Bruce]

That's a lie, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:57:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce

Shall we put it to a poll?

[Bruce]

I don't care.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:17:28 -0800 (PST), Bruce

Don't care about the truth, either...

You pretend you have no burden to defend the WCR, yet you aren't
honest enough to acknowledge their deficiencies and lies.

Nor can you tell us what happened on 11/22/63, and support it with
citation.

You can't convince people that way...

[Bruce]

I acknowledged that I have no burden and then proceeded to defend their rendering of the quote using citations. Keep moving those goalposts though.

[Bud]

Your truth?

> You pretend you have no burden to defend the WCR, yet you aren't
> honest enough to acknowledge their deficiencies and lies.

Did the WC kill Kennedy?

> Nor can you tell us what happened on 11/22/63, and support it with
> citation.

Fringe reset. If you don`t like what the WC did, do better.

> You can't convince people that way...

Where did he say he was trying to convince anyone of anything?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:25:22 -0800 (PST), Bruce

So you start with a lie.

The truth is that EVERYONE has a burden to be able to support their
claims. EVERYONE!

LFD.

[Bruce]

Their OWN claims, Ben. I am not the Warren Commission, so this was not MY claim any more than a random statement by Harold Weisberg would be your own claim. Nevertheless, the bit you are ignoring is where I *did* defend their claim. Everybody can read it for themselves and it's clear who's lying.

[Bruce]

Just a reminder: the response pasted below is what Ben considers running from a question. Note that he STILL has not answered the question on curtain rods.

"First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony because I have not expressed any opinion on their report or methods. When I want information, I go to the testimony itself. I don't care what the WCR has to say about it. I wouldn't ask a CT to defend the opinion of say, Harold Weisberg or Jim Marrs, either, unless they specifically endorsed their work.

And to address your contention, let's look at Dougherty's testimony. Yes, he said that he was positive while testifying. But his initial statement was not definite at all. It said "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today." If you have to add "vaguely," it's not a very positive statement. (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 376)

When asked about this during the testimony, he said "I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye -- that's the reason why I said it that way." That's also far from positive. How well are you going to remember what somebody is carrying if you see them out of the corner of your eye? (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 377)

So, no I wouldn't say that the Warren Commission rendered the testimony incorrectly. Though he claimed to be positive on this point, the actual details of his testimony and the statement taken closer to the event are far from that.

As an addendum, Dougherty also testified when asked "did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?" that "Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did." He specifically cited Bill Shelley, who he said "told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package." (Warren Commission Hearings, volume 6, page 381)

So is it possible that Dougherty was just mistaken about what somebody he saw out of the corner of his eye was carrying? It seems plausible to me."

[Hank Sienzant]

It's not one size fits all. It's one size fits everyone but Ben.
Ben has his own rules for himself.

He gets to redefine what you said to fit his faith and to be better able to dismiss it.

But if you say anything about what Ben said, you have to quote his exact words.

Double Standard? You bet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), Bruce

But unlike you, if you list something Weisberg has claimed, yet not
supported, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO AGREE THAT HE WAS WRONG AT THE VERY
LEAST. And if the evidence supports that he lied, I've nothing
stopping me from saying so.

You, have not demonstrated this level of honesty.

You support the WCR, yet deny any responsibility to defend their lies.

> Nevertheless, the bit you are ignoring is
> where I *did* defend their claim. Everybody can read it for
> themselves and it's clear who's lying.

If you're trying to claim that you don't agree with the WCR 100% -
you'll have painted yourself into a corner.

Watch folks - as the anonymous "Bruce" who claims not to be a WC
believer will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to point out anyplace where he
actually disagrees with them.

We've already given "Bruce" the chance to prove his honesty.

Sorry... you failed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:49:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
<errese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just a reminder: the response pasted below is what Ben considers running from a question. Note that he STILL has not answered the question on curtain rods.
>

>"First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony...


That's all that need be said.

It tells the complete tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:55:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>It's not one size fits all. It's one size fits everyone but Ben.
>Ben has his own rules for himself.
>
>He gets to redefine what you said to fit his faith and to be better able to dismiss it.
>
>But if you say anything about what Ben said, you have to quote his exact words.
>
>Double Standard? You bet.

Looks like a heaping load of logical fallacy...

[Bruce]

This is a really silly and childish game that every rational person sees right through, Ben. Quoting a single sentence and ignoring the rest is clearly bad faith and everybody knows it. Nobody's fooled by this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:07:45 -0800 (PST), Bruce

<errese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:57:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:49:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just a reminder: the response pasted below is what Ben considers running from a question. Note that he STILL has not answered the question on curtain rods.
>>>
>>>"First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony...
>>
>> That's all that need be said.
>>
>> It tells the complete tale.
>

> This is a really silly and childish game...


Denying your own words now?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:51:27 AM UTC-8, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:50:39 PM UTC-6, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:28:17 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:59:49 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> > > > > > What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
> > > > > Google is your friend, Bruce....
> > > > Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?

> > > Yes. It’s faith-based. No doubt is allowed. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You are supposed to accept on faith that there is a conspiracy and not question the conspiracy’s existence.
>
> > sitdown Hank, you're making a damn fool out of yourself.
> Your lack of self-awareness is amazing. You fancy yourself as some sort of "insider" JFK expert because decades ago in Duluth, Minnesota, you presented a rambling, incoherent talk on Zapruder film alteration, where, not surprisingly, you didn't really talk much about how the Zapruder film could be altered. (Photographic matting was your conclusion? Hilarious.) Total garbage, and one could almost feel how awkward the guests felt, who tragically were subjected to your childish hobby points, staring at their watches and squirming in their seats with obvious embarrassment for you. I'm sure the symposium ringleader, the discredited kook, Professor James Fetzer, was embarrassed, too, and remember, this is a guy who thinks Sandy Hook was faked and that planted demolition charges took down the towers on 9/11.
>
> The definition for the term Dunning-Kruger effect was developed precisely to describe people like you.
>
> You've repeatedly referred to JFK as John FRANCIS Kennedy.
>
> You frequently mix up the date or year of JFK's assassination. Just the other day, you wrote that JFK died in 1964.
>
> Not too long ago, you mixed up the identity of Tom Rossley--someone you knew and who'd posted here for around two decades--with that of Tom Lowry, who hasn't posted here in almost a decade and who tormented you with crude, pornographic Photo Bucket memes and cruel posts filled with vile language aimed at you and your daughter Chandra. How you could mix the identities up of those two is a remarkable feat in memory collapse. You're definitely suffering some sort of age-related cognitive decline. You make Joe Biden look sharp.
>
> We all make posting mistakes, but there's something extra with your mistakes. You combine a lack of awareness about your own rather limited abilities with a profound inability to post anything cogent, as you veer off in one strange direction after another, with disjointed stream-of-consciousness thoughts married to spelling mistakes and grammatical errors a second grader wouldn't make.
>
> On top of all of that, you're good for "retiring" from the "JFK research community" about once a year, inflicting upon us a maudlin couple of paragraphs thanking your fellow critics for hearing your "published ideas" about the JFK assassination. You're a regular Rhodes scholar, Healy. Two days later, you're back posting the same loopy nothings. As Barb Junkkarinen once wrote when you made some facetious little remark regarding an article she co-authored debunking the shot through the JFK limo windshield, she got your number a long time ago. Well, we have your number here, too. Good grief.
>
> How about another speech retiring from the board again? We could all use a few laughs.
>
> ((!!**HICCUP**!!))

your envy is appalling... and frankly my dear, I don't give a fuck what you feel, hear, say, smell, see or know. Ya'll Narcissist's whine in the same key - to the same tune... Carry on Pale Thighs...

[Bruce]

More like objecting to them being taken wildly out of context. But to somebody as bad faith and dogmatic as you, those may be synonymous.

[Hank Sienzant]

But not if we substitute Mark Lane for Weisberg. According to you, Lane never said anything wrong.

>And if the evidence supports that he lied, I've nothing
> stopping me from saying so.

Will you ever concede any conspiracy theorist got anything wrong? Have you ever?
Give one example, cite for it.

Nothing stops you except your faith. Was Weisberg wrong in _Whitewash_ when he claimed the limo was under the second road stripe on Elm Street at the time the Altgens photo showing the TSBD photo was exposed?

Was Thompson wrong in _Six Seconds in Dallas_ when he claimed one film taken from opposite Zapruder showed a white mass moving down the trunk after the head shot? It doesn’t.

Was Mark Lane wrong when he claimed the Warren Commission didn’t investigate the claims of Mary Ann Mercer? They did, he claimed they didn’t.

.

>
> You, have not demonstrated this level of honesty.

My irony meter just broke.

>
> You support the WCR, yet deny any responsibility to defend their lies.

You support Lane, yet delete any reference to his false allegations and refuse to defend them.

> > Nevertheless, the bit you are ignoring is
> > where I *did* defend their claim. Everybody can read it for
> > themselves and it's clear who's lying.
> If you're trying to claim that you don't agree with the WCR 100% -
> you'll have painted yourself into a corner.
>
> Watch folks - as the anonymous "Bruce" who claims not to be a WC
> believer will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to point out anyplace where he
> actually disagrees with them.
>
> We've already given "Bruce" the chance to prove his honesty.
>
> Sorry... you failed.

You don’t get to determine that.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not a refutation.

[Bruce]

Not relevant to the argument, but on the subject of Whitewash; I bought a copy and it was the hardest book to read. Not because of the content, but because it wasn't printed a standard book. The pages were printed as if the whole thing was typewritten. Are all copies like that?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:22:43 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> Not relevant to the argument, but on the subject of Whitewash; I bought a copy and it was the hardest book to read. Not because of the content, but because it wasn't printed a standard book. The pages were printed as if the whole thing was typewritten. Are all copies like that?

it's obvious you have not read much concerning this subect matter, or, just who old Harold is/was....

But thanks for keeping the Hankster busy, he get paid by post poundage......he's expected to produce lone nut nonsense and plenty of it... Old Ben has him muzzled up most times....

[Bruce]

You've always got something nasty to say, but never anything of substance. Unfortunate.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:36:15 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:22:43 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> > Not relevant to the argument, but on the subject of Whitewash; I bought a copy and it was the hardest book to read. Not because of the content, but because it wasn't printed a standard book. The pages were printed as if the whole thing was typewritten. Are all copies like that?
> it's obvious you have not read much concerning this subect matter, or, just who old Harold is/was....
>
> But thanks for keeping the Hankster busy, he get paid by post poundage......

How much does an electron weigh?

The actual weight of an Electron is 9.05 x 10-28 grams, that’s right, 9.05 times ten to the minus twenty eighth Grams, an incredibly small mass.

Now at $10/lb., how many words would I need to write to earn a buck?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:07:31 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:57:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:55:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not one size fits all. It's one size fits everyone but Ben.
>>>Ben has his own rules for himself.
>>>
>>>He gets to redefine what you said to fit his faith and to be better able to dismiss it.
>>>
>>>But if you say anything about what Ben said, you have to quote his exact words.
>>>
>>>Double Standard? You bet.
>>
>> Looks like a heaping load of logical fallacy...
>
>Not a refutation.

No need to "refute" logical fallacies, merely to point them out. You
believe this, why wouldn't I?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:52:13 -0800 (PST), Bruce

<errese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:13:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:07:45 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:57:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:49:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> >> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Just a reminder: the response pasted below is what Ben considers running from a question. Note that he STILL has not answered the question on curtain rods.
>> >>>
>> >>>"First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony...
>> >>
>> >> That's all that need be said.
>> >>
>> >> It tells the complete tale.
>> >
>> > This is a really silly and childish game...
>>
>>
>> Denying your own words now?
>
>More like objecting to them being taken wildly out of context.

Quoted you precisely.

Let's hear another lie...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:05:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

LFD.

>>And if the evidence supports that he lied, I've nothing
>> stopping me from saying so.
>
>Will you ever concede any conspiracy theorist got anything wrong? Have you ever?
>Give one example, cite for it.

The silliness of Greer shooting anyone. The silliness of shooters on
the sidewalk of the GK. The nuttiness of whatshername, the alleged
girlfriend.

I can't be bothered to cite for them, these are facts you'll cry about
no matter what.

You lose!

>> You, have not demonstrated this level of honesty.
>>

>> You support the WCR, yet deny any responsibility to defend their lies.
>
>You support Lane, yet delete any reference to his false allegations and refuse to defend them.

Nope. You cannot use logical fallacies to debate.

>>> Nevertheless, the bit you are ignoring is
>>> where I *did* defend their claim. Everybody can read it for
>>> themselves and it's clear who's lying.
>> If you're trying to claim that you don't agree with the WCR 100% -
>> you'll have painted yourself into a corner.
>>
>> Watch folks - as the anonymous "Bruce" who claims not to be a WC
>> believer will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to point out anyplace where he
>> actually disagrees with them.
>>
>> We've already given "Bruce" the chance to prove his honesty.
>>
>> Sorry... you failed.
>
>You don’t get to determine that.

No, but the American population does... and they agree that you're a
moron and have lost.

[Ben Holmes]

You want substance?

Here you go:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

If you get through that, I've got more...

[Hank Sienzant]

Well, that’s your designated “out”, isn’t it?

Label everything a logical fallacy (or anything you don’t care to address), pretend you don’t need to discuss what, specifically, is illogical and how it’s illogical, and then deny you have any further obligation to discuss anything regarding your assertion that it’s a logical fallacy.

No, that is the logical fallacy of begging the question. You’re imbedding an unproven assertion in your argument and never attempting to prove it. Then, you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof back onto your opponents to establish it’s not a logical fallacy.

Nope. I made the arguments and cited the evidence supporting my points.

That’s where it stands. Labeling it a logical fallacy is not a refutation, it’s an unproven assertion, and claiming you don’t need to refute it because it is a logical fallacy, is itself the logical fallacy of begging the question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 06:54:31 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:36:04 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:07:31 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:57:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:55:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's not one size fits all. It's one size fits everyone but Ben.
>>>>>Ben has his own rules for himself.
>>>>>
>>>>>He gets to redefine what you said to fit his faith and to be better able to dismiss it.
>>>>>
>>>>>But if you say anything about what Ben said, you have to quote his exact words.
>>>>>
>>>>>Double Standard? You bet.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a heaping load of logical fallacy...
>>>
>>>Not a refutation.
>> No need to "refute" logical fallacies, merely to point them out. You
>> believe this, why wouldn't I?
>
>Well, that’s your designated “out”, isn’t it?

Lie again, Hucklster - and claim that you don't believe that... and
that you'd never do that.'

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben pretends quoting precisely eliminates the possibility of quoting out of context. The two are not synonymous.

Here’s an example of quoting something precisely but still quoting out of context:

“A great movie” — NYTimes movie review slapped on a movie poster as a quote.

When the full quote is:
“This is a great movie for those who like to be bored to tears or are in need of sleep!”.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:03:17 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:37:24 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:52:13 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:13:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:07:45 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:57:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:49:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just a reminder: the response pasted below is what Ben considers running from a question. Note that he STILL has not answered the question on curtain rods.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"First, I have no obligation to defend the Warren Commission's rendering of testimony...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all that need be said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It tells the complete tale.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a really silly and childish game...
>>>>
>>>> Denying your own words now?
>>>
>>>More like objecting to them being taken wildly out of context.
>>
>> Quoted you precisely.
>>
>> Let's hear another lie...
>
>Ben pretends quoting precisely eliminates the possibility of quoting out of context.

Watch, as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to show how my response was not
DIRECTLY RELATED to the precise argument made by Bruce.

Watch, as both Huckster AND Bruce will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show how
the statement I quoted changes in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER when put into any
context you care to invent.

Indeed, Huckster could have posted those very same words... he agrees
with "Bruce."

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:59:40 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:44:24 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:19:28 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:55:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:48:14 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> >>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
> >>>>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
> >>>>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
> >>>>> *YOU* are asking critics?
> >>>
> >>>> I don't claim to have all the answers or know whether Oswald's guilty, but if you've got a question I can try to answer it. So far, nobody in this thread has even tried to answer the original question which seems like a very important one to the CT case.
> >>>

> >>>Ben Holmes has settled...
> >>
> >> Chuckles is TERRIFIED of quoting or citing me.
> >
> >Haha!
> >
> >Here ya go, from the Benny Tracker series:
> Do you understand the concept of quoting, or citing?
>
> I don't want what *YOU* claim I said, I want what I actually said.

Right here, Ben. You started the thread, it's the first post:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

In response to a question about what Oswald carried in the long bag he brought to work on 11/22/63, you said it was his lunch.

Your words.

Ouch!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

>Right here, Ben. You started the thread...

You're provably lying again, Chuckles...

[Hank Sienzant]

== quote ==
>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?

His lunch.
== unquote ==

‘His lunch’ is your words, Ben.
So prove it.

Get your popcorn ready.

[Ben Holmes]

HEY MORON!!! Unless you can prove that I started the "Benny Tracker"
series, you're provably a liar.

Chuckles lied, and you're lying in support of his lie.

Don't you ever get tired of lying?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ad hominem and a non sequitur fallacy. I linked to your post in your thread, Ben, when you challenged me to produce it.

>
> Chuckles lied, and you're lying in support of his lie.

Huh? Weird. I linked to YOUR words in YOUR post in YOUR thread.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

>
> Don't you ever get tired of lying?

Are you asking yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:28:32 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

And again, Chuckles is a proven moron.

>> Chuckles lied, and you're lying in support of his lie.
>

>Huh? Weird. I linked to YOUR...

No.... you didn't. It's not my thread.

IT'S NOT MY THREAD!!!!

But, trying to explain the facts to a moron is a meaningless
exercise...

[Hank Sienzant]

You started this thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/zBw5aM1ABwAJ

This thread is the one you started:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/zBw5aM1ABwAJ

In that thread, in the very first post (which you made as you started the thread), I see a question and your answer, quoted below.

== quote ==
>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?

His lunch.
== unquote ==

Your denials are beyond bizarre.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:46:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>You started this thread...


Not even bothering to look, I know you're a liar.

If you're going to defend Chuckles lies, you're going to have to
explain to the world how I started the "Benny Tracker" thread.

Or admit publicly that Chuckles lied.

*THEN* you can post something else.

But logical fallacies simply get deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

Straw man. Nobody’s talking about that thread but you.
The subject is what you said in this thread you started:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

== quote ==
>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?

His lunch.
== unquote ==

‘His lunch’ is your words, Ben.

Like I said, get your popcorn ready.

The logical fallacies are coming fast and furious.

>
> Chuckles lied, and you're lying in support of his lie.

Begged.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

>
> Don't you ever get tired of lying?

Begged.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

[Hank Sienzant]

Hilarious. Chuck linked to this thread entitled “Steve’s A Moron”
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

>
> If you're going to defend Chuckles lies, you're going to have to
> explain to the world how I started the "Benny Tracker" thread.

Nobody’s trying to change the subject to that thread but you.

Here’s the thread Chuck linked to entitled “Steve’s A Moron”
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

You started that thread entitled “Steve’s A Moron”. No one else.

>
> Or admit publicly that Chuckles lied.
>
> *THEN* you can post something else.
>
> But logical fallacies simply get deleted.

You delete anything you can’t respond to.

Here’s the thread Chuck linked to entitled “Steve’s A Moron”
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CDHACkb1uXI/m/RwKOTMNvCAAJ

You started that thread entitled “Steve’s A Moron”. No one else.

Your response to the question at the bottom of your initial post in that thread is this:

== quote ==
>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?

His lunch.
== unquote ==

‘His lunch’ is your words, Ben.

> >> But, trying to explain the facts to a moron is a meaningless
> >> exercise...

Am I wasting my time pointing out your false claims then?
Or is the answer simpler, you don’t get tired of telling falsehoods?

[Chuck Schuyler]

I quoted a post in the thread you started, 'Steve's A Moron...' in the Benny Tracker thread. No one is claiming you started the Benny Tracker thread.

Of course, you are arguing to argue, per usual. Ben argues for conflict, never for clarity. Eristic argumentation.

>
> Or admit publicly that Chuckles lied.

By quoting your words in your post in your thread?

>
> *THEN* you can post something else.
>
> But logical fallacies simply get deleted.
> >> But, trying to explain the facts to a moron is a meaningless
> >> exercise...
> >>>> Don't you ever get tired of lying?

So what did Oswald bring to work in the long bag, Ben? Would you like to take another crack at it?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:42:40 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

Let me expand on my prior answer a bit. Anything with the hashtags ## like this ## is an addition.

Here’s the problem. For a conspiracy theorist there is no easy answer to your question.

If Oswald had curtain rods in the long package, why would he deny bringing a long package that day?
Oswald claimed in his interrogation sessions that there was no long package, just his lunch. Meanwhile, Frazier told the police that Oswald had told him there were curtain rods in the long package.

If Oswald had curtain rods, he could have led the police to the curtain rods, and say, this is what I brought! But he didn’t do that.

##
Instead, he told the police he only brought his lunch. But as noted, that contradicted the story that Frazier told the police Oswald said to him (Frazier). Frazier claimed Oswald told him that he (Oswald) was going to the Painess to get curtain rods, and reiterated that on Friday morning when Frazier asked, “What’s in the package, Lee?”

So that’s another problem and sticking point for CTs trying to explain away the evidence pointing to Oswald. When confronted with Frazier’s claim, Oswald said Frazier must be mistaken or thinking of some other time.

Because only one of the two explanations Oswald gave can be true (no one eats curtains rods for lunch!), we know Oswald was being dishonest. Innocent people usually avoid telling untruths in custody, and especially innocent people accused of a capital crime. They recant quickly. For example, a man may lie and say he was at work, but when that lie falls apart upon investigation, they will admit the lie and confess their true whereabouts, maybe with a mistress, as they are not going to be jailed for that. But Oswald did not admit the lunch bag lie, he doubled down on it. Reasonable people will ask why, and one answer reasonable people will understand is “because there were no curtain rods”. We see an example of Oswald correcting an untruth elsewhere in his interrogation. He originally claimed he took a bus to his rooming house, but I vestiigation revealed that was not correct, and when Oswald was confronted with the facts there, he immediately corrected his story, claiming he now recalled taking a cab after departing the bus. But no5 with the curtain rods, because there were no curtains he could point to to support his curtain rod story.

Critics try to get around this with various subterfuges. The one I’ve seen most frequently is they declare Frazier is lying, Oswald told him no such thing. But that then entails getting Linnie Mae Randle within the plot as well, as she confirmed that Oswald had a long package that nearly touched the ground. ##

And the police knew there was a long package recovered from the snipers nest corner where three shells were found. And where numerous witnesses saw a rifle or a man with a rifle. And Oswald’s print was found on that bag. And a rifle was found on that floor. They also knew the estimates were too short, because the found bag was 38 inches.

So it became obvious to the DPD that Oswald’s claim there was no long package brought to the Depository that morning was not true. They had the physical evidence of the rifle and the paper bag in evidence.

Conspiracy theorists try to get around this problem by claiming Oswald was telling the truth and everybody else was lying. The bag was forged to frame Oswald, the bag was too short, Frazier was intimidated into the long package story, so was his sister, and we enter the Twilight Zone with this one: Some CT claimed Oswald admitted to the long package and the police tried to make Oswald look guilty by making up Oswald’s denials of the long package!

My response to that has always been, if they were going to put words in Oswald’s mouth, why not make up an admission that Oswald confessed?

That’s why no CT wants to man up and discuss the the long package Oswald was seen with.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

ya need a girl friend, dude.... think there were curtains with those curtain rods....

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 07:05:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

You're lying again, Huckster!

This is really a very simple issue. Chuckles referenced one of HIS
threads, and claimed I'd started it.

That's a provable lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:05:05 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Notice folks, which thread Chuckles refers to...

>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of quoting, or citing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't want what *YOU* claim I said, I want what I actually said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right here, Ben. You started the thread...

Notice folks, the lie Chuckles now told about that thread with the
title "Benny Tracker."

>>>>>>>> You're provably lying again, Chuckles...
>>>>>
>>>>>> HEY MORON!!! Unless you can prove that I started the "Benny Tracker"
>>>>>> series, you're provably a liar.
>>>> And again, Chuckles is a proven moron.
>>>>>> Chuckles lied, and you're lying in support of his lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? Weird. I linked to YOUR...
>>>>
>>>> No.... you didn't. It's not my thread.
>>>>
>>>> IT'S NOT MY THREAD!!!!
>>>
>>>You started this thread...
>>
>>
>> Not even bothering to look, I know you're a liar.
>>
>> If you're going to defend Chuckles lies, you're going to have to
>> explain to the world how I started the "Benny Tracker" thread.
>

>I ...

Lied. As I've shown above. Own it!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:56:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

What series? A thread called "Benny Tracker??"

>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of quoting, or citing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want what *YOU* claim I said, I want what I actually said.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right here, Ben. You started the thread...

And here it is, the claim that *I* started a thread called "Benny
Tracker."

Provably a lie.

>>>> You're provably lying again, Chuckles...
>> HEY MORON!!! Unless you can prove that I started the "Benny Tracker"
>> series, you're provably a liar.
>
>Straw man. Nobody’s talking about that thread but you.

You're lying again, Huckster. As I demonstrated above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:29:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>That’s why no CT wants to man up and discuss the the long package Oswald was seen with.

What's the reason you refuse to man up and respond to the post where I
proved you a liar?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

[Hank Sienzant]

This is the 79th post in this thread, and still Ben can’t bring himself to discuss the original questions in the first thread in this post.

Reminder what the subject of this thread is:

“What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?”

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:59:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:07:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:29:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That’s why no CT wants to man up and discuss the the long package Oswald was seen with.
>>
>> What's the reason you refuse to man up and respond to the post where I
>> proved you a liar?
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Notice first of all that Huckster has again evaded a simple question.

The truthful answer is that he simply doesn't want to deal with the
fact that he's been proven a liar in that post. So he sticks his head
in the sand and pretends that post doesn't exist.

> This is the 79th post in this thread, and still Ben can’t bring
> himself to discuss the original questions in the first thread in this
> post.

Why? Nothing's changed. It's really simple... when believers refuse
to answer questions, they have no right to the time of critics to
answer theirs.

How difficult is that to understand?

Or are you just too STUPID to understand it?

Let us know...

>Reminder what the subject of this thread is:

Doesn't matter. You could be asking me if the sun shines.

You deserve precisely the respect you offer us.

[Bruce]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:15:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:59:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:07:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:29:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>That’s why no CT wants to man up and discuss the the long package Oswald was seen with.
> >>
> >> What's the reason you refuse to man up and respond to the post where I
> >> proved you a liar?
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
> Notice first of all that Huckster has again evaded a simple question.
>
> The truthful answer is that he simply doesn't want to deal with the
>

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

>>fact that he's been proven a liar in that post. So he sticks his head
>>in the sand and pretends that post doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>>> This is the 79th post in this thread, and still Ben can’t bring
>>> himself to discuss the original questions in the first thread in this
>>> post.
>>
>>Why? Nothing's changed. It's really simple... when believers refuse
>>to answer questions, they have no right to the time of critics to
>>answer theirs.
>>
>>How difficult is that to understand?
>>
>>Or are you just too STUPID to understand it?
>>
>>Let us know...
>>
>>
>>>Reminder what the subject of this thread is:
>>
>>
>>Doesn't matter. You could be asking me if the sun shines.
>>
>>You deserve precisely the respect you offer us.
>>

>LFD.

Keep runing "Bruce" - you'll soon get killfiled when you stop amusing
me.

[Bruce]

You heard it here first, folks. "LFD" is no longer an acceptable response.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 16:06:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce

Is that what you're claiming?

I know you're not saying *I* said that. If you were to tell *that*
lie, I'd have to reciprocate.

[Bruce]

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 16:20:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce

I know you're not saying *I* said that. If you were to tell *that*
lie, I'd have to reciprocate.

And since you didn't deny that it's *YOUR* claim... I'll just have to
say you're a kook.

[Bruce]

Oh no, Ben Holmes thinks I'm a kook. Whatever shall I do?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You shall run over to Hank for another circle jerk session, that's what you'll do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:44 -0800 (PST), Bruce

Either admit that you're a kook, or admit that you were the one who
made the assertion.

Who cares?

[Hank Sienzant]

This is the 90th post in this thread, and still Ben - or any CT, really - cannot bring themself to discuss the original questions in the first thread in this post.

Reminder what the subject of this thread is:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:24:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Jesus, I answered (drop dead when it comes to discussion -- Holmes has made it abundantly clear, you sir, are a waste of time) this topic in the 2nd (that's the second) response in this thread. Are you going blind as well as dumb these days?

[Hank Sienzant]

"Google is your friend, Bruce...." is a meaningless response. What do you believe was in the package? What evidence can you cite for your belief? Why do CTs scatter when a softball question is asked of them?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It was a Curtains Rod, a Remington Fireball, the weapon which was used from behind the picket fence, silly.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Whoops! I named the cartridge, not the gun. An XP-100, I guess it's called. Take the handle off, and it fits right into the package seen by Frazier and his sister. https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/34/584534/H1193-L91152031.jpg

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:26:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:21:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:17:28 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:13:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:57:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:27:22 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:51:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:00:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:22:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:12:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:05:56 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:48:13 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google is your friend, Bruce....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. Are YOU willing to answer the same sort of questions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU* are asking critics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't claim to have all the answers or know whether Oswald's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty, but if you've got a question I can try to answer it. So far,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody in this thread has even tried to answer the original question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems like a very important one to the CT case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> It's becoming quite clear that you're simply another believer... and
>>>>>>>>>>>> believers are notorious for asking questions, but never answering
>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So let's see where you stand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did Huckster Sienzant lie... or tell the truth?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hilarious!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You find it funny that you lied, and refuse to answer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just asked him a question (changing the subject in the process)
>>>>>>>>>>> while failing to answer his original question. You’re doing exactly
>>>>>>>>>>> what you claim others are guilty of.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you a moron, Huckster? I've made it quite clear that I provide
>>>>>>>>>> answers to any evidential question in this case TO THOSE WHO DO THE
>>>>>>>>>> SAME.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ad hominem.
>>>>>>>> That you're a moron is, but the facts still remain.
>>>>>>>>>> If someone wants to ask me questions, I want to first ensure that they
>>>>>>>>>> are interesting in answering questions as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What if he has the same standard? Don’t you have to go first?
>>>>>>>> As critics are well known for answering any and all questions, and
>>>>>>>> believers are well known for running away, no.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A believer has the burden.
>>>>>>>>>> don’t
>>>>>>>>>> It's not a one way street... and you're a moron to suggest that it is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hilarious!
>>>>>>>> Laugh all you want... it's turning into a cackle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I answered ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Naw... you ran.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lie, Ben.
>>>>
>>>> Shall we put it to a poll?
>>>
>>>I don't care.
>>
>> Don't care about the truth, either...
>>
>> You pretend you have no burden to defend the WCR, yet you aren't
>> honest enough to acknowledge their deficiencies and lies.

LFD.

>> Nor can you tell us what happened on 11/22/63, and support it with
>> citation.

LFD.

>> You can't convince people that way...
>
> Where did he say he was trying to convince anyone of anything?

Then, like you, he's a moron.

Didn't take long for me to establish the truth, did it?

[gggg gggg]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

(Youtube upload):

"1966-2013 THROWBACK: "CURTAIN RODS""

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> He specifically cited Bill Shelley, who he said "told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package." (Warren Commission Hearings, volume 6, page 381)

Shelley wasn't even in the building when Oswald came to work.

Mr. Ball : On November 22nd, did you see him come to work that morning ?

Mr. Shelley: No he was at work when I got there already filling orders. ( 6 H 328 )

This is why hearsay is not accepted as evidence.

[BT George]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:28:17 PM UTC-6, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:59:49 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> > > > What do CTs believe Oswald brought in the long package? Even if you don't believe Buell Frazier, his sister Linnie Mae Randle testified to the same thing. If it was curtain rods, what use did he have for them and where did they come from?

> > > Google is your friend, Bruce....
> > Do you have an issue with me asking questions on a discussion forum or something?

> Yes. It’s faith-based. No doubt is allowed. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You are supposed to accept on faith that there is a conspiracy and not question the conspiracy’s existence.

Slight correction. It's *blind* faith-based. ...And also deaf and dumb (in both senses of the word). Everything else you said about their approach to this is a bulls-eye.