Lest We Forget...

[Ben Holmes]

>> So, pardon me, but I'm a newcomer to this group here.
>> If there were curtain rods where did they go?
>
>No rods were ever found in the TSBD or anywhere else. In addition, no rods
>were needed or even allowed in LHO's rooming house.

Note that both "facts" given in the answer are provably wrong. Beyond
ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER they are wrong. Photographic proof in both
cases...

There was a time when believers could appear to be honest...

But that day is long gone...

[Bud]

Someone else wrote...

In their Appendix B, the LaFontaines review the case against Oswald,
and deal with a variety of issues. On many they claim to be
publishing "new evidence" in the case.

For example, the curtain rods:

<Quote on>-------------------------------------------------

C. Oswald brought a long package to work with him on the morning of
November 22, 1963.

SIGNIFICANCE: The package, believed from its shape to have contained
a hidden rifle, helped place the murder weapon in Oswald's hands on
the day of the assassination and strongly suggested a premeditated
crime.

RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES: The Commission discounted Oswald's claim that
the package contained "curtain rods." The only witnesses to the
package, B.W. Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, testified that
the package was shorter than what would have been the broken-down
length of the alleged assassination weapon, and would not change their
stories under great pressure to do so.

NEW EVIDENCE: Newly released Dallas Police files on the assassination
contain photographs of "curtain rods" dusted for fingerprints. No
evidence could be found that the photos were ever turned over to the
Warren Commission. Carl Day, lieutenant-in-charge of the DPD Crime
Scene Search division in 1963, could not recall where the curtain rods
had been found. He examined the photos of the dusted rods in October
1993, and although it didn't appear to him that the clearest
fingerprint (an apparent right thumbprint) was Oswald's, he could not
say conclusively that it was not when comparing it with a photo of
Oswald's thumbprint. Since then, the curtain rod photos have been
examined informally by three fingerprint experts in other cities with
similarly inconclusive results. (Bill Adams later found a report
signed by Carl Day stating that the prints are not Oswald's. The
other question remains.)

<Quote off>-------------------------------------------------

The LaFontaines clearly want their readers to believe that these
*might* be curtain rods that Oswald brought into the Depository on
November 22nd. If they are, a major part of the Warren Commission's
case against Oswald collapses.

Jean Davison deserves credit for questioning the LaFontaines treatment
of this issue, and for running down important information.

She contacted Cindy Smolovik, Dallas Municipal Archivist, and asked
about these pictures of "curtain rods." What the Dallas Archives has
is (1) two pictures of prints, KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE
PAINE'S GARAGE, numbered 275 and 276. (2) A form from the DPD
Identification Bureau showing that Howlett of the Secret Service
submitted to Day two curtain rods, numbered 275 and 276, on March 15,
1964. Day's notation on this form is "1 legible print -- does not
belong to Oswald." The form shows the rods were released back to
Howlett on March 24th.

Finally, (3) A form, dated 3-25-64, and numbered 256, with the
notation "opposite those on other side and" [truncated]. The card
shows fingerprints on a curtain rod.

In short, what the Archives has is one set of prints on curtain rods
from the Paine's garage, and another print or prints, not known to be
from the Paine's garage, BUT NOT KNOWN TO BE FROM ANYWERE ELSE EITHER.

Given the dates -- the unidentified fingerprints are dated the day
after Day released the rods back to Howlett -- it seems likely that
this is simply more paperwork on the rods found in the Paine's garage.

The LaFontaines are certainly remiss in not even telling their readers
about the curtain rods found in the garage. They are especially
remiss in quoting Adams' document, as though it pertained to curtain
rods that *might* have been brought to the Depository by Oswald, when
in fact the rods could not have been brought in by Oswald.

As bad is the LaFontaines statement that "No evidence could be found
that the photos were ever turned over to the Warren Commission." The
implication here is that this is evidence the Warren Commission never
knew about, but in fact, the curtain rods were discussed at
considerable length in the testimony of Michael Paine (9H447-450) and
Ruth Paine and Agent John Howlett (9H424-425).

The actual curtain rods were turned over to the Warren Commission.
Had the LaFontaines been curious enough to look in the Warren
Commission Exhibits, under "Paine Exhibits," they would have found a
photo labelled "Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276." There are the curtain
rods that Ruth Paine turned over to Howlett on March 23, 1964.

<Quote on>

JENNER. Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark
Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No.
276. The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the
reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276 for identification.
(9H424)

<Quote off>

This is extraordinarily shoddy use of evidence. Either the
LaFontaines didn't know about the Warren Commission testimony about
curtain rods found in the Paine's garage, or they intentionally misled
their readers.

You can note that it is LNers who are looking for the actual answers and it is CTers who like things right where they are, where they can insinuate (but not show) that they are sinigicant.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> The actual curtain rods were turned over to the Warren Commission.
> Had the LaFontaines been curious enough to look in the Warren
> Commission Exhibits, under "Paine Exhibits," they would have found a
> photo labelled "Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276." There are the curtain
> rods that Ruth Paine turned over to Howlett on March 23, 1964.

Maybe you can explain then why:

a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
Howlett turned them over and

b.) why there are two different documents indicating that after the rods were dusted, they were released by Lt. Day
on TWO different days, 3/24 and 3/26.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CSSpair.png

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:56:54 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >
> > The actual curtain rods were turned over to the Warren Commission.
> > Had the LaFontaines been curious enough to look in the Warren
> > Commission Exhibits, under "Paine Exhibits," they would have found a
> > photo labelled "Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276." There are the curtain
> > rods that Ruth Paine turned over to Howlett on March 23, 1964.
> Maybe you can explain then why:
>
> a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
> Howlett turned them over and

Dropped off on the 15th and picked up on the 24th.

> b.) why there are two different documents indicating that after the rods were dusted, they were released by Lt. Day
> on TWO different days, 3/24 and 3/26.

Clearly one is a copy of the other. Go with the original.

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CSSpair.png

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:08:51 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:56:54 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
> > Howlett turned them over and
> Dropped off on the 15th and picked up on the 24th.

This is what happens when you don't know the evidence.

On March 23, 1964, Ruth Paine and Joe Howlett were deposed AT HER HOME.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0202b.htm

The package of curtain rods were opened at that time.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm

Howlett took possession of the curtain rods from Ruth Paine AT THAT TIME on the 23rd. and they were marked exhibits 275 and 276.

Bottom page:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm

Now a.) explain how Howlett dropped off curtain rods on the 15th that didn't come into his possession until the 23rd and

> Clearly one is a copy of the other. Go with the original.

b.) the release part of those forms prove that one is NOT a copy of the other. The writing isn't the same.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png

Don't you ever get sick of guessing and being wrong ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 05:38:37 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:08:51?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Too much common sense! Believers are scattering...

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:38:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:08:51 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:56:54 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
> > > Howlett turned them over and
> > Dropped off on the 15th and picked up on the 24th.
> This is what happens when you don't know the evidence.

I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.

> On March 23, 1964, Ruth Paine and Joe Howlett were deposed AT HER HOME.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0202b.htm
>
> The package of curtain rods were opened at that time.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>
> Howlett took possession of the curtain rods from Ruth Paine AT THAT TIME on the 23rd. and they were marked exhibits 275 and 276.
>
> Bottom page:
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>
> Now a.) explain how Howlett dropped off curtain rods on the 15th that didn't come into his possession until the 23rd and
> > Clearly one is a copy of the other. Go with the original.
> b.) the release part of those forms prove that one is NOT a copy of the other. The writing isn't the same.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png
>
> Don't you ever get sick of guessing and being wrong ?

Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.

[John Corbett]

What the hobbyists will never do is try to explain the significance of these anomalies. Just the
fact that they exist must mean there was a conspiracy......somehow.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:03:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:38:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:08:51?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:56:54?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>>> a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
>>>>> Howlett turned them over and
>>>> Dropped off on the 15th and picked up on the 24th.
>>> This is what happens when you don't know the evidence.
>> I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
>>> On March 23, 1964, Ruth Paine and Joe Howlett were deposed AT HER HOME.
>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0202b.htm
>>>
>>> The package of curtain rods were opened at that time.
>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>>>
>>> Howlett took possession of the curtain rods from Ruth Paine AT THAT TIME on the 23rd. and they were marked exhibits 275 and 276.
>>>
>>> Bottom page:
>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>>>
>>> Now a.) explain how Howlett dropped off curtain rods on the 15th that didn't come into his possession until the 23rd and
>>>> Clearly one is a copy of the other. Go with the original.
>>> b.) the release part of those forms prove that one is NOT a copy of the other. The writing isn't the same.
>>>
>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png
>>>
>>> Don't you ever get sick of guessing and being wrong ?
>> Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
>

>What the hobbyists will never do is try to explain ...

Oh the irony!!!

Just what is that sentence from the Autopsy Report you're provably
frightened of again???

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.

No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.

Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.

What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.

Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.

That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.
That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:58:30 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

You won't get it... but I'm quite sure you already knew that... :)

[Ben Holmes]

Worth noting that not a *SINGLE* believer has addressed this yet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:01:36 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
>
>That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.
>That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
>By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.

Yep... absolutely true. I can think of just a few believers who
actually knew the evidence - Huckster Sienzant is one of them... yet
he frequently and blatantly LIES about the evidence.

And when he cannot credibly lie, he simply refuses to answer.

As I've stated many times, EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER is both a coward and
a liar. The only honest believers are those who've simply never
thought about the matter, and hold no strong beliefs on it.

[Charles Schuyler]

I'm addressing it by pointing out you both apparently believe different things. Gil seems to be implying curtain rods were in the paper bag, you say it was Oswald's lunch. Would you care to elaborate?

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
> No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
> handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.

And what about the parts that are clearly identical?

> Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
> the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.

What did Michael Paine have to say about curtain rods?

> What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.

With much of the content clearly copied one to the other.

> Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.

If it is my evidence then it is none of your B-I-Business.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:01:39 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
> That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.

What have you gained by combing the evidence looking for anomalies? Convictions? Leads?

Or just an endless production of "What about this, huh, huh, huh?"

If that is what you have to offer after 60 years I`d say my approach was as productive as yours.

> That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.

My characterization is more accurate.

> By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.

Didn`t know we were playing the JFK assassination version of Trivial Pursuit.

And do you or Ben actually have a clue about what it actually means to debate an issue? I`ll give you a hint, it has never occurred here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:03:40?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:06:16 -0700, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> So, pardon me, but I'm a newcomer to this group here.
>>>>> If there were curtain rods where did they go?
>>>>
>>>>No rods were ever found in the TSBD or anywhere else. In addition, no rods
>>>>were needed or even allowed in LHO's rooming house.
>>>
>>>Note that both "facts" given in the answer are provably wrong. Beyond
>>>ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER they are wrong. Photographic proof in both
>>>cases...
>>>
>>>There was a time when believers could appear to be honest...
>>>
>>>But that day is long gone...
>> Worth noting that not a *SINGLE* believer has addressed this yet.
>
>

>I'm addressing it by pointing out you both...


Clearly, another logical fallacy on your part.

Did Steve Keating tell the truth when he claimed that "no rods were
ever found..." or that "no rods ... even allowed in LHO'S rooming
house"?

You can't answer, of course... you're a coward and a liar.

[Steven Galbraith]

Using google to find things that support his preconceived conspiracy is considered "research". He complains about us not considering exculpatory evidence for Oswald. Did he ever consider any evidence *implicating* him? Where has he cited it? How about exculpatory evidence for all of the people he accuses of being involved? Warren et al? I've never read a single post by him here or at the nuthouse exonerating all of these people he says were involved. He's a pretend Mark Lane for Oswald and a hanging judge for everyone else.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:47:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:01:39?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > > I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
>> > That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.
>> What have you gained by combing the evidence looking for anomalies? Convictions? Leads?
>>
>> Or just an endless production of "What about this, huh, huh, huh?"
>>
>> If that is what you have to offer after 60 years I`d say my approach was as productive as yours.
>> > That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
>> My characterization is more accurate.
>> > By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.
>> Didn`t know we were playing the JFK assassination version of Trivial Pursuit.
>>
>> And do you or Ben actually have a clue about what it actually means to debate an issue? I`ll give you a hint, it has never occurred here.
>
> Using google to find things that support his preconceived conspiracy
> is considered "research". He complains about us not considering
> exculpatory evidence for Oswald. Did he ever consider any evidence
> *implicating* him? Where has he cited it? How about exculpatory
> evidence for all of the people he accuses of being involved? Warren et
> al? I've never read a single post by him here or at the nuthouse
> exonerating all of these people he says were involved. He's a pretend
> Mark Lane for Oswald and a hanging judge for everyone else.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:47:35 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:01:39 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
> > > That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.
> > What have you gained by combing the evidence looking for anomalies? Convictions? Leads?
> >
> > Or just an endless production of "What about this, huh, huh, huh?"
> >
> > If that is what you have to offer after 60 years I`d say my approach was as productive as yours.
> > > That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
> > My characterization is more accurate.
> > > By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.
> > Didn`t know we were playing the JFK assassination version of Trivial Pursuit.
> >
> > And do you or Ben actually have a clue about what it actually means to debate an issue? I`ll give you a hint, it has never occurred here.
> Using google to find things that support his preconceived conspiracy is considered "research".

Clearly it is a bias driven activity. *Why* was the idea that the curtain rods were broken prior to the assassination so important to Ben and Gil?

Is the goal to get to the truth or is the goal to steer Oswald through all the indications of his guilt so he comes out the other side untouched?

[Bud]

The person claiming to speak for everyone else.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:40:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
> > No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
> > handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.
> And what about the parts that are clearly identical?

Now I'm going to explain to you what happened and why the evidence is conflicting:

The Dallas Police received a set of curtain rods from Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett on 3/15.
They made up the form that you're looking at sans the release information.
The colorized version shows that the form was filled out in red ink.
They dusted these rods and could only find one identifiable print on it.
The record shows that it did not belong to Oswald, but it did.

They received a SECOND set of curtain rods, this one from the Paine residence via SS agent Howlett on 3/23.
For this set of rods they made no form. They knew they had a problem, so they copied the form they used for the first set of rods, again, sans the release information.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CSS4.gif

They dusted those curtain rods and released them to Howlett on 3/24. The release information is in blue ink.
Those were the Paine rods and those are the ones in evidence. Of course, Oswald's prints were not on that set.

So what happened to the first set of rods ?

Because Oswald's print was on that first set of rods, they were destroyed. Lt. Day used the copy of the form to release the first set to himself on 3/26
and destroyed them. That form became Commission Exhibit 1952.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm

You''ll notice that those rods were released by Lt. Day and that no one signed for them.
That's because he didn't release them to anyone else.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/3_26-rods.png

So they used a copy of the paperwork from the first set of rods they received on 3/15 and applied it to the rods turned in on 3/23 from the Paine garage.
And while the first set of rods turned in on 3/15 were destroyed, they forgot to destroy the original paperwork that proved that TWO sets of rods were released by Lt. Day, one on 3/24
to Agent Howlett and the other on 3/26, apparently to no one else.

This is why you have a record of the Dallas Police lab receiving curtain rods on 3/15. Those were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
The Paine curtain rods were not even heard of until 3/17 and were not discovered in the garage until 3/23.
So any rods turned into the Dallas Police Lab on 3/15 were NOT the Paine curtain rods.

If I'm wrong, where is the CSS form from the Dallas Police Lab indicating it received a pair of curtain rods from Agent Howlett on 3/23 ?

Now, if you and your cronies have a better scenario to explain this, I'd love to hear it.

> > Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
> > the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.
> What did Michael Paine have to say about curtain rods?

You don't know what Michael Paine said about the curtain rods ?
You don't know much about this case, do you ?
Look it up. I gave you the citation.

> > What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.
> With much of the content clearly copied one to the other.

Except when they were released and to whom.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png

> > Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.
> If it is my evidence then it is none of your B-I-Business.

Brilliant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:21:03 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:40:08?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

When critics post evidence, all believers can do is run away...

[Bud]

I thought you would call Gil to task fort all that crackpot speculation he was engaging in.

Oh no, no I didn`t.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:21:04 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:40:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
> > > No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
> > > handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.
> > And what about the parts that are clearly identical?
> Now I'm going to explain to you what happened and why the evidence is conflicting:
>
> The Dallas Police received a set of curtain rods from Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett on 3/15.

Why would he have curtain rods then?

> They made up the form that you're looking at sans the release information.
> The colorized version shows that the form was filled out in red ink.
> They dusted these rods and could only find one identifiable print on it.
> The record shows that it did not belong to Oswald, but it did.
>
> They received a SECOND set of curtain rods, this one from the Paine residence via SS agent Howlett on 3/23.
> For this set of rods they made no form. They knew they had a problem, so they copied the form they used for the first set of rods, again, sans the release information.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CSS4.gif
>
> They dusted those curtain rods and released them to Howlett on 3/24. The release information is in blue ink.
> Those were the Paine rods and those are the ones in evidence. Of course, Oswald's prints were not on that set.
>
> So what happened to the first set of rods ?
>
> Because Oswald's print was on that first set of rods, they were destroyed. Lt. Day used the copy of the form to release the first set to himself on 3/26
> and destroyed them. That form became Commission Exhibit 1952.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
>
> You''ll notice that those rods were released by Lt. Day and that no one signed for them.
> That's because he didn't release them to anyone else.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/3_26-rods.png
>
> So they used a copy of the paperwork from the first set of rods they received on 3/15 and applied it to the rods turned in on 3/23 from the Paine garage.
> And while the first set of rods turned in on 3/15 were destroyed, they forgot to destroy the original paperwork that proved that TWO sets of rods were released by Lt. Day, one on 3/24
> to Agent Howlett and the other on 3/26, apparently to no one else.
>
> This is why you have a record of the Dallas Police lab receiving curtain rods on 3/15. Those were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
> The Paine curtain rods were not even heard of until 3/17 and were not discovered in the garage until 3/23.
> So any rods turned into the Dallas Police Lab on 3/15 were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
>
> If I'm wrong, where is the CSS form from the Dallas Police Lab indicating it received a pair of curtain rods from Agent Howlett on 3/23 ?
>
> Now, if you and your cronies have a better scenario to explain this, I'd love to hear it.

Magical leprechauns.

> > > Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
> > > the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.
> > What did Michael Paine have to say about curtain rods?
> You don't know what Michael Paine said about the curtain rods ?

If I did I wouldn`t have asked.

> You don't know much about this case, do you ?

I don`t assume Michael Paine has any information that would give insight into the crime.

> Look it up. I gave you the citation.

Apparently Michael Paine had nothing significant to say about curtain rods.

> > > What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.
> > With much of the content clearly copied one to the other.
> Except when they were released and to whom.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png
> > > Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.
> > If it is my evidence then it is none of your B-I-Business.
> Brilliant.

You claimed it was mine. Stay out of it then. Get your own.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:21:04 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:40:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
> > > No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
> > > handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.
> > And what about the parts that are clearly identical?
> Now I'm going to explain to you what happened and why the evidence is conflicting:

Correction: What you *surmise* happened. You have offered no evidence of this beyond the anomalies in dates.

>
> The Dallas Police received a set of curtain rods from Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett on 3/15.

Where did Howlett obtain them from? Absent a legitimate paper trail establishing a chain of custody, isn’t it your position that these curtain rods are inadmissible as evidence? What do the numbers 275 and 276 on that document signify?

> They made up the form that you're looking at sans the release information.

Why would Day allow that into the record if they were trying to hide the existence of what you call the first set of curtain rods?

> The colorized version shows that the form was filled out in red ink.
> They dusted these rods and could only find one identifiable print on it.
> The record shows that it did not belong to Oswald, but it did.

The evidence says it didn’t belong to Oswald. On what basis are you claiming it did?
Can you cite *all* the evidence supporting your assertion?

>
> They received a SECOND set of curtain rods, this one from the Paine residence via SS agent Howlett on 3/23.
> For this set of rods they made no form. They knew they had a problem,

What problem? How’d you determine what they knew, and how they resolved the issue? Can you walk us through the evidence and your thinking there?

> so they copied the form they used for the first set of rods, again, sans the release information.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CSS4.gif

Link didn’t work.

>
> They dusted those curtain rods and released them to Howlett on 3/24. The release information is in blue ink.
> Those were the Paine rods and those are the ones in evidence. Of course, Oswald's prints were not on that set.
>
> So what happened to the first set of rods ?
>
> Because Oswald's print was on that first set of rods, they were destroyed. Lt. Day used the copy of the form to release the first set to himself on 3/26
> and destroyed them. That form became Commission Exhibit 1952.

Uh, you have asserted, but not established, that Oswald’s prints were on the first set.
You haven’t established the origin of this supposed first set.
You haven’t explain the numbers 275 & 276 on the document.
You need to flesh out the parts where you assert, but do not establish, an attempt at a coverup and destruction of evidence.

>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
>
> You''ll notice that those rods were released by Lt. Day and that no one signed for them.
> That's because he didn't release them to anyone else.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/3_26-rods.png

What do the numbers

>
> So they used a copy of the paperwork from the first set of rods they received on 3/15 and applied it to the rods turned in on 3/23 from the Paine garage.
> And while the first set of rods turned in on 3/15 were destroyed, they forgot to destroy the original paperwork that proved that TWO sets of rods were released by Lt. Day, one on 3/24
> to Agent Howlett and the other on 3/26, apparently to no one else.
>
> This is why you have a record of the Dallas Police lab receiving curtain rods on 3/15. Those were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
> The Paine curtain rods were not even heard of until 3/17 and were not discovered in the garage until 3/23.
> So any rods turned into the Dallas Police Lab on 3/15 were NOT the Paine curtain rods.

Or the document was mis-dated. How’d you eliminate that possibility? Please go into detail on that point. Who did you interview concerning these dates, and when?

>
> If I'm wrong, where is the CSS form from the Dallas Police Lab indicating it received a pair of curtain rods from Agent Howlett on 3/23 ?

So there is solid evidence for just one transfer, is that your argument?

>
> Now, if you and your cronies have a better scenario to explain this, I'd love to hear it.

One set was taken from the Paine garage and tested for prints. They were negative for Oswald’s prints. A document was misdated and re-issued with the correct date. Just Friday I received a legal document prepared by a lawyer that contained a number of errors. I will today respond by email correcting those errors. Once I correct those errors, there will be two different documents, denoting different things. Does that mean there is a coverup/ conspiracy, or just human error?

You need to explain how human error doesn’t explain the anomaly you found in the dates better than your imagined conspiracy explanation.

> > > Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
> > > the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.
> > What did Michael Paine have to say about curtain rods?
> You don't know what Michael Paine said about the curtain rods ?
> You don't know much about this case, do you ?
> Look it up. I gave you the citation.

It’s your argument. Make it. The Commission spelled out their arguments and evidence, they didn’t give you a citation and tell you to look it up.

> > > What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.

Yes, so?

> > With much of the content clearly copied one to the other.
> Except when they were released and to whom.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png

Tuesday vs Thursday. How did you eliminate the plan was for the curtain rods to be released on the 24th (Tue), and the document prepared that way, but a change of plans meant it was released on the 26th (Thu), hence the two versions?

Did you considered any non-conspiratorial explanations, and if so, what were they and how did you eliminate them?

> > > Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.

A explanation for what, a difference in dates?

Human error, a change of plans. Gee, was that so hard to come up with on your own?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:21:04?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:40:08?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > > > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
>> > > No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
>> > > handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.
>> > And what about the parts that are clearly identical?
>> Now I'm going to explain to you what happened and why the evidence is conflicting:
>
>Correction: What you *surmise* happened. You have offered no evidence of this beyond the anomalies in dates.

Here we see the inability to reason that ALL believers are afflicted
with. They **CANNOT** offer an explanation that actually FITS the
facts, indeed, they canot acknowledge any conflict at all in the
evidence.

They have their heads stuck somewhere dark...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:38:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:08:51?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:56:54?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> a.) the document indicates that curtain rods were received by the Dallas Crime Lab on March 15th, some EIGHT DAYS BEFORE
>>>> Howlett turned them over and
>>> Dropped off on the 15th and picked up on the 24th.
>> This is what happens when you don't know the evidence.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> On March 23, 1964, Ruth Paine and Joe Howlett were deposed AT HER HOME.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0202b.htm
>>
>> The package of curtain rods were opened at that time.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>>
>> Howlett took possession of the curtain rods from Ruth Paine AT THAT TIME on the 23rd. and they were marked exhibits 275 and 276.
>>
>> Bottom page:
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm
>>
>> Now a.) explain how Howlett dropped off curtain rods on the 15th that didn't come into his possession until the 23rd and
>>> Clearly one is a copy of the other. Go with the original.
>> b.) the release part of those forms prove that one is NOT a copy of the other. The writing isn't the same.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/release-comparison.png
>>
>> Don't you ever get sick of guessing and being wrong ?
>
> Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.

You'll never cite for this speculation - because speculation is all it
is. Believers **NEVER** acknowledge conflicting evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:06:20?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> So, pardon me, but I'm a newcomer to this group here.
>> >> If there were curtain rods where did they go?
>> >
>> >No rods were ever found in the TSBD or anywhere else. In addition, no rods
>> >were needed or even allowed in LHO's rooming house.
>>
>> Note that both "facts" given in the answer are provably wrong. Beyond
>> ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER they are wrong. Photographic proof in both
>> cases...
>>
>> There was a time when believers could appear to be honest...
>>
>> But that day is long gone...
>

> Someone else wrote...

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit didn't know...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:58:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Everything else on the page is identical. Perhaps they noted the mistake of the date and just changed that.
>> No. you're not looking at the link I provided. The release part of the forms are DIFFERENT. They have different dates and the
>> handwriting is different. If you looked at the evidence, you'd see it.
>
> And what about the parts that are clearly identical?

Clearly a moronic troll.

>> Plus, the Paine curtain rods were first mentioned in Michael Paine's testimony on March 17, 1964, ( 9 H 447 ) TWO DAYS AFTER
>> the 15th, when you claim they were "dropped off" at the Dallas Crime Lab by Howlett.
>
> What did Michael Paine have to say about curtain rods?

To who?

>> What we have here are two different versions of a form with two different release dates written at two different times.
>
> With much of the content clearly copied one to the other.

Begged.

>> Since it's YOUR evidence ( evidence you support ) I'd like an explanation.
>
> If it is my evidence then it is none of your B-I-Business.

And Chickenshit shows again why he named himself as he did...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:01:39?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
>> That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.

Logical fallacies deleted.

>> That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
>>

>> By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.

Chickenshit can't debate.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:26:48?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:47:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:01:39?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:39:03?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> I haven`t engaged in the stupid hobby of pouring through the evidence looking for anomalies.
>>>> That's why you're ignorant when it comes to the evidence.
>>> What have you gained by combing the evidence looking for anomalies? Convictions? Leads?
>>>
>>> Or just an endless production of "What about this, huh, huh, huh?"
>>>
>>> If that is what you have to offer after 60 years I`d say my approach was as productive as yours.
>>>> That thing you refer to as a "stupid hobby" is called research.
>>> My characterization is more accurate.
>>>> By your own admission, you're totally unprepared to debate the merits of this crime.
>>> Didn`t know we were playing the JFK assassination version of Trivial Pursuit.
>>>
>>> And do you or Ben actually have a clue about what it actually means to debate an issue? I`ll give you a hint, it has never occurred here.
>> Using google to find things that support his preconceived conspiracy is considered "research".
>
> Clearly it is a bias driven activity. *Why* was the idea that the
> curtain rods were broken prior to the assassination so important to
> Ben and Gil?

Perhaps that's because it's the reasonable way to look at the
evidence.

And you *KNOW* when proven cowards & liars say one thing - it pays to
look at the other...


> Is the goal to get to the truth ...


You wouldn't know the truth if you accidently spoke it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I thought ...

Oh no, you didn't.