BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Tim Nickerson]

Yep. The experts said the Titanic was unsinkable, and in the fifties, they said that smoking was good for you.

The fifties was also when they started saying that fat was bad for you.

[Bill Chapman]

I must point out here that I was merely stating what I would do if I found myself battling Cancer. It was the opinion of a non-medical professional. Walt should follow the advice of his doctor(s). If they advise Chemotherapy then he should undergo it. I would.

That isn't factual. While the brain does need some glucose, the rest of the body can get by just fine using ketones as an energy source. The brain is also capable of using ketones as an energy source but it does actually need some glucose as well. That need is easily supplied by the liver which can produce glucose from protein and lipids through a process known as gluconeogenesis.

Okay, Dr. Nickerson
 

Walt should follow the advice of his doctor(s)
>>> Exactly. This is why I posted the Mayo Clinic information about the sugar myth. Myths abound about practically anything one can name.

[Bill Chapman]

Idea!

Let's start a new thread titled 'Sugar and Cancer' just for Messrs Chapman and Weidmann! 

Why? The argument came down to why didn't I respond to the smoke 'safe' comment initially.

[Alan Ford]

Well now, this is rich!

Over on another forum, Mr S Galbraith has written the following (emphasis added):

"Go to any conspiracy site and look up the discussion of the "curtain rods"
issue/question.

"Nearly every single conspiracy advocate - no matter how extreme or
moderate, no matter how sensible (some can be more reasonable than others)
- will insist he had curtain rods with him. And most will say they found
rods in the Paine garage and therefore, for some reason, that's evidence
he brought them to work. How are rods found back in a garage in Ft. Worth
evidence they were brought to a building in Dallas?

"It's just completely illogical."

Now! What's completely illogical here is Mr Galbraith's behavior. He is a member of this forum. I have invited him----------along with Mr von Pein and others---------to debate the evidence that 2 curtain rods tested for fingerprinting on 15 March cannot possibly have been found in the Paine garage. Given Mr Galbraith's evident interest in the curtain rods issue, he will have seen this invitation. Yet he stays away from a robust discussion, preferring instead to go elsewhere and write this utter strawman mischaracterization of the current state of the debate.

So!

Mr Galbraith, I hereby re-invite you to debate with me----------here on this forum----------the implications of this official Crime Scene Search Section form:




Let's see just how secure you are in your own 'logical' approach to the evidence! 

Bumped for Mr Galbraith! 

[Alan Ford]

You keep running away from my question, Mr Mytton:



Do you believe both dates on this form are wrong?

Simple yes or no! 

Bumped for Mr Mytton! 

[Denis Pointing]

Bumped for Mr Mytton! 

You still don't get it, do you? Threads dead and your pet theory has died with it. Everyone else has moved on. Like I told you way back, the very basics of your story theory don't add up, just don't make any sense. Going by the lack of interest it would seem both 'sides' agree on this. Why would anyone even bother to attempt to discuss this with you any longer? You've been giving several possible explanations, which you asked for BTW, and you automatically dismiss them with shouts of "preposterous" & "not cogent". Congratulations, you've established quite a reputation for yourself here...a reputation for being someone who's not worth trying to hold an intelligent and polite debate with.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

[Alan Ford]

You still don't get it, do you? Threads dead and your pet theory has died with it. Everyone else has moved on. Like I told you way back, the very basics of your story theory don't add up, just don't make any sense. Going by the lack of interest it would seem both 'sides' agree on this. Why would anyone even bother to attempt to discuss this with you any longer? You've been giving several possible explanations, which you asked for BTW, and you automatically dismiss them with shouts of "preposterous" & "not cogent". Congratulations, you've established quite a reputation for yourself here...a reputation for being someone who's not worth trying to hold an intelligent and polite debate with.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

The issue will be dead when someone can offer a rational counter-explanation for the plain-as-day evidence that 2 curtain rods were submitted for checking for Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were 'found' in the Paine garage, and that the crime lab did not release the first 2 curtain rods until after the WC visit to the Paine garage.

The question of whether curtain rods were ever found in the Depository is one that goes to the very heart of the WC case against Mr Oswald. Warren Gullible protestations to the contrary, the official Crime Scene Search Section form presents a very large problem for those who support the official story.

Now!

So far, Messrs Nickerson, Pointing and Mytton have stepped forward, offered completely nonsensical theories (Both dates are just, yannow, wrong... Jenner suspected Ruth Paine of, well, something or other, and Oswald's prints on the rods in her garage would have indicated, well, something or other... Someone played a hoax by leaving curtain rods in the TSBD, and it's just coincidence that the numbers just happen to be 275 and 276 in each case), and then breezily declared 'Nothing to see here------matter resolved!'.

This is of course typical of the Warren Gullible modus operandi: I will fearlessly follow the evidence wherever it leads, and make sure the place we end up is always safely within the confines of the Warren Report narrative.

We all know that if dates and timestamps on an official form so clearly demolished a conspiracy claim, these gentlemen would (rightly) dismiss CT attempts to throw strained and incoherent theories at the problem as kook reality-denial. They would be sending us to the pertinent setting-the-record-straight page on Mr McAdams' Warren Gullible site.

Mr Pointing must know that his ridiculous explanation doesn't stack up, and that none of the other attempted LN explanations do either. His frustration at this, and his misdirected anger towards me, are certainly palpable. I forgive him, he's human! 

But! Some things are even more important than Mr Pointing's feelings... So the challenge remains open:

Can anyone who believes Mr Oswald did not bring curtain rods to work on the morning of 11/22/63 offer a rational counter-explanation for the plain-as-day evidence that
---------------------------2 curtain rods were submitted for checking Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before 2 curtain rods were 'found' in the Paine garage
---------------------------the crime lab did not release the first 2 curtain rods until after the WC visit to the Paine garage?