David Von Pein

Correct. I prefer not to imitate Johnnie Cochran.

It's unanswerable (as of this date on 11/9/2023) unless I choose to engage in what I would consider to be wholly unwarranted (and, in fact, just plain silly) speculation regarding the March 15 / March 24 / March 26 dates.

The March 25th date shown in the photo that appears in my last post is consistent with what appears in CE1952, with that version of the CSSS form saying the rods were released to Howlett on March 26. Yes, there's a SECOND copy of the form which says March 24 for the release date, which I can't fully explain. Nor can you. It's one of those "unanswerable" anomalies (unless I can locate more documents in the future that can explain why there are separate copies of the same form featuring different dates). But it's still quite clear that BOTH forms (the one that says March 24 and the one that says March 26) are referring to the exhibits numbered 275 and 276, which were, of course, the two rods taken from Ruth's house on 3/23.

And here's another rare Dallas Police Department image concerning the curtain rods, this one featuring a date --- March 25, 1964 --- which is a date that is perfectly consistent with the rods having been removed from Ruth Paine's garage on the night of March 23rd.... https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49815/?q=curtain rods

FYI / FWIW.... Here are some rarely-seen DPD photos showing the prints that were lifted off of the two curtain rods recovered from Ruth Paine's garage (Exhibits 275 and 276). Only one of the prints was deemed "legible" by Lt. J.C. Day.... https://texashistory.unt.edu / Prints On Exhibit No. 275 https://texashistory.unt.edu / Prints On Exhibit No. 276

As I said in my last post. CTers almost always exhibit.... "...utter desperation, wishful thinking, and outright speculation..." Alan Ford just demonstrated all three of those traits in his last post.

I think it merely showcases the utter desperation, wishful thinking, and outright speculation that we (of course) have all been accustomed to seeing in virtually every argument put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists since the crime was committed in November of 1963. So, thank you, Alan Ford, for being willing to showcase your massive amounts of speculation and your willingness (and eagerness) to call multiple people outright l-i-a-r-s, all based on the words "March 15" on one document (plus a copy of said document). Another fine (and extraordinarily fun and funny) example of CTer desperation and wishful thinking and speculation in action (re: the SBT) can be found HERE.

Sounds a lot like the Brian David Andersen theory. He's the kook who wrote a book in 2007 called "My God, I'm Hit!", theorizing that JFK faked his own death by exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head. A "fake JFK" then popped up out of a secret compartment in the back of the limo. If you've got $125 to waste, you can still get a copy of this Pulitzer Prize winner at Amazon!! Hurry though....only one copy left!

Untrue. I have said multiple times that I think the March 15th date on the DPD form is simply an error. Which it so obviously is, when taking into account the totality of the facts surrounding the two curtain rods that were recovered from Ruth Paine's garage on 3/23/64. Reclaiming History Book Excerpt..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And please, Alan, please keep fantasizing that the March 15 document SOMEHOW means that rods were found IN THE TSBD.....even though it proves no such thing (nor does it even go in that direction, except in the fanciful mind of an ABO CTer). Carry on with your next fantasy please....

A simple slipped digit in the March 15 date just isn't nearly good enough for a CTer, is it? Something MORE *must* enter into it, right? And tell me again what was the reason for why the WC didn't merely deep-six the curtain rods that you (I guess) think were taken into the TSBD by LHO on 11/22 (even though Oswald himself decided to lie about this and say he took no rods into work; that's something you certainly need to work on, and without using the "All Cops Lied About What LHO Said" cop-out please), instead of transporting the rods back into Ruth's garage at some point prior to March 23rd? Wouldn't just getting rid of the rods be a better solution, vs. the proverbial curtain rod/garage "charade"? Please enlighten me (again) with your wisdom as to why the WC cover-uppers didn't just simply eliminate said rods? And remember, I'm just a dumb-as-a-rock hick from the Hoosier State, so please explain it (again) very slowly. Thanks.

I'm very talented, that's all.

Try March 25. Or maybe August 31. Or Dec. 27 (that's my birthday).

ANY date after March 23.

The March 15 date was wrong. Simple as that. No l-i-a-r-s required. Just a mistake on a paper. CTer Version = L-i-a-r-s / schemers / evidence manipulators everywhere! Which version is more likely to be the truth---mine or yours?

Now you're just making stuff up. There is NO EVIDENCE which points "precisely" to any curtain rods being recovered from the TSBD. None. And your fantasy and cloak-and-dagger crap regarding Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276 doesn't come CLOSE to showing that any rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. Why you think otherwise is yet another mystery.

The JFK Conspiracy Fantasists have people scheming and plotting and planting and lying and conniving and altering and framing patsies all over the place in this case. You think all of those never-ending accusations can be wiped out by replacing all of those terms I just used with the simple word "WRONG"? Get real.

I don't accept any of the claims by any of those people, Mr. Conspiracy. They were all "wrong", but not necessarily L-words. Just like the many Parkland witnesses who said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. I have never called any of those witnesses the L-word. But they were all "wrong". And they were provably wrong too, with the autopsy X-rays and photos providing the proof (for all time) that they were wrong.

Better read my quote again, Mr. Conspiracy. I never said there were "Zero L-i-a-r-s" in the whole case. What I said was this.... "I require a total of 0 (Zero) l-i-a-r-s (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained." The above statement is certainly still 100% true even with L-i-a-r-s like Russo, Hill, and Craig in the mix. I can easily maintain and support my LN position even without those 3 people ever surfacing in any discussion. Can CTers maintain and support THEIR position with only THREE measly l-i-a-r-s in the mix? Not a chance. You need at least ten times that many (if not more). P.S. -- People that I think were just simply "wrong" about something don't go into my "L-i-a-r-s" list. Maybe that's something that CTers like you, John, should learn.

I added Russo too.

You're out of your mind if you truly think that I (or ANY other LNer) thinks ALL of those people on your silly list are to be labelled as "l-i-a-r-s". The only people who I would label as l-i-a-r-s on that list would be Roger Craig, Perry Russo, and Jean Hill. (And all 3 of them are, of course, told PROVABLE lies.)

But in the "EXHIBIT NO. 275 / CURTAIN ROD" instance, which some CTers are now insisting was all just a "charade", if those CTers are correct, we'd actually have to believe that not only did people in "officialdom" fib/lie out their respective ass cracks, but we'd ALSO have to believe that Ruth Paine (and probably Michael Paine too) were lying about the curtain rods that Ruth said were stored in her garage both BEFORE and AFTER the assassination. And neither Ruth nor Michael are part of the police, the FBI, or "officialdom" in general. And regarding the "SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER", which many many CTers on the Internet now firmly believe NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL .... the l-i-a-r-s in that instance would have, just like the "Exhibit 275 Charade", also consisted of a COMBINATION of "officialdom" people telling one lie after another (Marrion Baker) and regular ol' citizens (TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly). And then there's the Tippit murder (which many conspiracy theorists believe was committed by someone they are sure was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald) .... with witnesses like Johnny Brewer and Ted Callaway and the Davis girls and William Scoggins all being thrown under the bus and treated like l-i-a-r-s and crooks by various CTers over the years. And none of those people I just mentioned can be labelled as being part of "officialdom" at all. They were all just ordinary Dallas citizens in 1963. So, again, in the Tippit case, if the CTers are right, it would have been a combination of ordinary people PLUS various police officials who must have lied through their individual and collective teeth and then they all gathered together in Chief Curry's office at City Hall and decided to join forces to frame an innocent Oswald. It's just flat-out absurd. And there are, of course, many additional examples that I could easily cite in order to support my previous (admittedly) tongue-in-cheek comment about "The More L-i-a-r-s, The Better" motto/mantra that seems to have been embraced in recent years by many Internet conspiracists. But if I were to cite all of those examples in just this one post, I wouldn't get any sleep for the next five days.

Yes, Alan, you are.

The BIG / HUGE / TREMENDOUS / IMPORTANT difference between JFK conspiracy fantasists and myself is: I require a total of 0 (Zero) l-i-a-r-s (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained. CTers like Alan Ford, however, require a very large number of people to be telling many lies about various aspects of the evidence connected to the 11/22/63 events in Dealey Plaza and on Tenth Street. In just this "Exhibit 275 / Curtain rod" instance alone, the CTers who think it was nothing more than a staged "charade" require several different people to be telling blatant falsehoods about the curtain rod evidence, including Ruth Paine, John Joe Howlett, Albert Jenner, J.C. Day, and (probably) Michael Paine. And it's very likely that CTers would place many other people at the Depository on this particular L-i-a-r-s List too. But, as I've said many times in the past, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who couldn't care less how many people they have to call rotten evil l-i-a-r-s in order to try and support their silly theories. It would seem the CTer policy has been (and still remains today): The More L-i-a-r-s, The Better.