A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[Alan Ford]

While you're there, Mr. Von Pein!

Are we to take your repeated evasions of the question below as a tacit admission on your part that you simply cannot answer it?

Can Mr. David Von Pein suggest a single alternative date to 3-15-64------any date that he thinks would work-------for the submission of the two curtain rods to the Crime Lab?

There's no shame in admitting that you've gotten the curtain rods issue all wrong, sir. The only shame would be in knowing this is the case but continuing to pretend your claim is is in rude health.

With just a LITTLE intellectual honesty on your part, this moment could be a BIG learning for you!

👍

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

3001 is not a random out-of-nowhere number with which to start counting at.

Yes, it is.

Why didn't the Commission utilize more 5000+ numbers instead of STARTING at 3001 for the Semingsen Exhibit?

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

42 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Can Mr. David Von Pein suggest a single alternative date to 3-15-64------any date that he thinks would work-------for the submission of the two curtain rods to the Crime Lab?

Are we to take your repeated evasions of the question [above] as a tacit admission on your part that you simply cannot answer it?

Regarding your non-stop inquiry re: the 3/15/1964 AD date on the CSSS document(s)....

Yes, Mr. A. Ford, you now have my official permission to designate my "repeated evasions" regarding that topic as a "tacit admission" on my part that I have no answer for it --- other than to keep repeating my own opinion that it is an (obvious) mistake, since the curtain rods weren't even retrieved by the Warren Commission from Ruth Paine's garage until the night of March 23rd, 1964.

But, by the same token, you cannot explain the March 15th date either (with any explanation that approaches anything of a PROVABLE nature, that is).

Now, would you care to admit to this forum, Mr. Ford, the obvious truth that is contained within my last sentence?

 

42 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

With just a LITTLE intellectual honesty on your part, this moment could be a BIG learning for you!

Mr. Ford is growing more obnoxious by the minute.

Congrats!!

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, it is.

Why didn't the Commission utilize more 5000+ numbers instead of STARTING at 3001 for the Semingsen Exhibit?

 

Who cares what the exact bureaucratic reason was? 3001 is not a random number like 3270 would have been. No, it's clearly the start of a 3000+ series that moves in nice tidy sequential manner up to 3017.

And this was the best you could do! 🤣

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Regarding your non-stop inquiry re: the 3/15/1964 AD date on the CSSS document(s)....

Yes, Mr. A. Ford, you now have my official permission to designate my "repeated evasions" regarding that topic as a "tacit admission" on my part that I have no answer for it --- other than to keep repeating my own opinion that it is an (obvious) mistake, since the curtain rods weren't even retrieved by the Warren Commission from Ruth Paine's garage until the night of March 23rd, 1964.

And there we have it, folks: Mr. David Von Pein finally admits that he is totally at a loss to explain the submission date on the CSSS form for the two curtain rods. So perplexed is he by this form that he cannot even think of ONE alternative 'correct' date that would work!

And what is his response to his own abject failure in this respect? This: "it is an (obvious) mistake".

Talk about a non sequitur!

The only obvious mistake here, of course, is Mr. Von Pein's oft-repeated Warren Gullible claim that (repeat after me, boys and girls) No! Curtain! Rods! Were! Ever! Found! In! The Depository!

Once Mr. Von Pein drops that evidence-denying claim, the headache brought on by cognitive dissonance will lift.

You're welcome, Mr. Von Pein!

👍

[Jean Ceulemans]

One can keep discussing the numbers.  

I can only say that when Jenner was in Dallas, numbers 259 to 269 were available (left-overs if you like from Marguerite Oswalds exhibits), I have posted that previously. 

Was he given a note that said "Exhibit No 258 - 269" and made a mistake by starting with 270 ?

Don't know, still checking.... for now it is a possibility (nothing more) 

So, no idea...  but new exhibits entering during a Hearing should start with the name of the person anyway but not always....  Well, they corrected only the name and kept the number.  Resulting in an out of ordinary number IMO

Changes were not uncommon,  in these series cfr. Commission Exhibit 271 etc (Oswald letters shown to Marguerite) appeared as Arnold Johnson Exhibits later on.

Still checking all the work files (a lot of'm, and not always in the correct location those darn things).

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

12 February, 1964:

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mrs. [Marguerite, A.F.] Oswald, I will hand you Exhibits 259 through 269, both inclusive, and ask you to take them starting with Exhibit 259 and referring to the exhibit in each case, tell the Commission what the picture is about.

[...]

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Exhibits 259 to 269 both inclusive, are those all of the pictures that you were offering the Commission this morning?
Mrs. OSWALD. I have many more pictures, I would be happy to show you but these are the pictures that your Mr. Jennet [sic.] said he would like to have for the Commission.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Jean Ceulemans]

Yes, but... the numbers were not recorded in the exhibit numbering as they should have been.  

They were left out

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

Those numbers don't even exist in the final edition.

The photo's were given another designation

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

4 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Those numbers don't even exist in the final edition.

The photo's were given another designation.

Where?

There is an amusing little legalistic ding-dong in the inimitable Mrs. Oswald's 12 Feb morning session over the pictures that were marked CE 259-269.

But it's academic. On 20 February, Mr. Jenner was------------in the session with Mr. Robert Oswald------------himself assigning 270+ to exhibits. He knew full well that the 270s were taken thereafter. The idea that this same Mr. Jenner would on 23 March make an innocent mistake of giving Mrs. Ruth Paine's exhibits 270+ numbers, and in such a way as to (mother-of-all-coincidences!) land on 275 for a curtain rod measuring 27.5 inches, eight days after a curtain rod marked with the digits 2-7-5 had been submitted for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints, is a non-starter.

The CSSS submission/release document explains the shenanigans of 23 March.

[Jean Ceulemans]

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Where?

 

Where they ended up is number 4 on my llist of "things to find out" because the work file is not where it is supposed to be filed...  

I know the Bronx Zoo picture ended up being CE-2893.  The one with the helmet on is CE-2894.   

For now I see as a fact : Jenner originally assigned the Paine stuff as :

"Commission Exhibit No 270" 

that was changed to 

"Ruth Paine Exhibit No 270".   

And Exhibit numbers 258 tot 269 shown to Marguerite were not used as Commission Exhibit Numbers and re-numbered.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

The only obvious mistake here, of course, is Mr. Von Pein's oft-repeated Warren Gullible claim that (repeat after me, boys and girls) No! Curtain! Rods! Were! Ever! Found! In! The Depository!

Once Mr. Von Pein drops that evidence-denying claim, the headache brought on by cognitive dissonance will lift.

Talk about leaping to an unfounded and wholly unsupportable claim! Mr. Ford has sure done that here.

Via a series of cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial contortions and outright speculation, Mr. Ford has decided that there WERE, in fact, some curtain rods found in the TSBD after the assassination of JFK, even though the only actual evidence (and testimony) indicates the exact opposite -- i.e., no curtain rods were found in the TSBD (via CE2640, plus the fact that the police never found a single curtain rod anywhere in the Book Depository Building during their extensive searches of that building for evidence on the weekend of the assassination).

So what we end up with is more of the usual coming from a conspiracy theorist -- with that "usual" being nothing more that a bunch of wishful thinking.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

47 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Talk about leaping to an unfounded and wholly unsupportable claim! Mr. Ford has sure done that here.

Via a series of cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial contortions and outright speculation, Mr. Ford has decided that there WERE, in fact, some curtain rods found in the TSBD after the assassination of JFK, even though the only actual evidence (and testimony) indicates the exact opposite -- i.e., no curtain rods were found in the TSBD (via CE2640, plus the fact that the police never found a single curtain rod anywhere in the Book Depository Building during their extensive searches of that building for evidence on the weekend of the assassination).

So what we end up with is more of the usual coming from a conspiracy theorist -- with that "usual" being nothing more that a bunch of wishful thinking.

 

🤣

'The proof that the authorities didn't lie when they said no curtain rods were found in the Depository is that the authorities said no curtain rods were found in the Depository.'

This is what counts in Warren Gullible circles for an argument, folks.

As for CE2640, it contains one of the funniest sentences anywhere in the WC volumes:

"Yes, sir, my workers know that it is longstanding company policy for the discovery of curtain rods to be reported immediately."

[David Von Pein]

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.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

 

'I am an extremely gullible person.'