On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <
sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <
davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> >> <
davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>> >> >
>> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
>> >> >
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>> >>
>> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Your points become invalid
>>
>> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
>> otherwise.
>>
>> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
>> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
>
> If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
You're lying again Dufus. You cannot quote a SINGLE "point" that I've
not answered.
Ditto with Jean.
Why do you think you can win a debate with lies?
>> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>
> Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
> An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
> person.
You're lying again, Dufus.
>> That fact tells the true story.
>>
>>
>> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
>> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
>> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
>> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>>
>> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>>
>> You're equating what you cannot show.
>
> Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
>
>> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
>> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
>> > them here in this book passage....
>>
>> Actually, no I don't.
>
> So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
> it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
> fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
> evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
> take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
> claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
> evidence.
You can whine that it "doesn't matter"... but it clearly mattered
enough to David to force him to run from my post.
The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>
> But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
> He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
> making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
rods.
You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
No... it doesn't.
Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
>> possession showing this.
>
> Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
possession for this critical evidence.
>> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
>> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
>> critics!)
>
> Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
> get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
> might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
happy to go into explicit detail.
David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
them for people who can't read.
But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
>> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
>> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
>> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
>> > garage?
>>
>>
>> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>>
>>
>> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
>> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
>> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
>> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
>> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
>> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>>
>> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
>> were fingerprinted.
>>
>> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>
> Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
> balls to actually make it, lurkers.
The argument was so decisive that Dufus refuses to answer just as
David refuses to answer.
>> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
>> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
>> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>> >
>> >Right, Ben?
>>
>>
>> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
>> critics would say.
>>
>> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
>> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
>
> Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
But you won't.
You're lying again.
>> Yet they didn't.
>>
>> (Careful now... think before you reply!)
Dufus refused to take my advice, he's now caught in a lie that he
won't retract.
>> >> Are you a coward, David?
>>
>> I can understand why you don't want to answer this question... and
>> even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
>> refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
>
> Ben ran from every point DVP made, lurkers.
You can't quote even *ONE* example.
You're a liar, Dufus.
>> Coward... aren't you?