"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof
that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and
presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
And I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 ) >They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies theAnd I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
WCR lie quoted above...
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 ) They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:27:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and
presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
And I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 ) >> They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination. >>
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
How does this hobby point harm the idea that Oswald killed JFK and JDT?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:27:44?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and
presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
And I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
Not surprising that you would think that is odd since you look at the wrong things incorrectly.
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 ) >> They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. I
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
So?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
Oh, now there's the smoking gun.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies theAnd I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
WCR lie quoted above...
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 ) They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. I
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
And surprising no-one at all, Corbutt simply ran...
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. I
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
Tell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. ITell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. ITell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:41:55?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
And surprising no-one at all, Corbutt simply ran...
Ask him if he's being entertained yet.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. I
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
Tell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. I
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
Tell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
Did they give a reason? I honestly don't know, so supply the answer
if you know.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and
presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE
1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what
the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday -
but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick
up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the
WCR lie quoted above...
And I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 )
They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.Ouch! Watching every believer in this forum get spanked hurt just
watching!
I predict dead silence from all the believers...
Logical fallacies, yes.
Outright lies, yes.
But address the topic raised?
Dead silence.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:27:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:16:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"On Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR
331)
"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night,
October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and >>> presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE >>> 1165 pg 6)
Notice that yet again, the actual *TESTIMONY* is in conflict with what >>> the Warren Commission said it was... The Warren Commission had no
evidence for Oswald cashing a check on Friday, rather than Thursday - >>> but this wouldn't have fit the evolving storyline. The WC clearly
didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not
unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick >>> up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
Watch folks, as Corbutt fails to cite ANY evidence that underlies the >>> WCR lie quoted above...
And I find it odd that the WC never published copies of Oswald's paychecks from the Texas School Book Depository.
They published copies of the checks from Jaggers-Childs-Stovall. ( CE 1174 )
They published copies of the checks from the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( CE 1175 )
Neither employments at these businesses were connected to the assassination.
But paychecks from the employer from whose building he allegedly fired the shots that killed the President they didn't publish ?
If they were going to publish ANY of Oswald's checks, you would think they would publish those.
But they couldn't because then they'd have to publish a copy of that check that was cashed on Thursday, October 31, 1963 at the A&P.
How does this hobby point harm the idea that Oswald killed JFK and JDT?How can you arrive at the truth by lying about the evidence?
Why will you refuse to answer the above question?
Why do you run from virtually EVERY QUESTION I ASK?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:21:44?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:29:56?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
So explain why it is significant that they didn't post his TSBD checks, if in fact they didn't. ITell us what the significance is of publishing the Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Reily checks.
learned long ago not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value, but assuming that
is true, tell us why that matters.
WTF do they have to do with the assassination of the President ?
I never said it did have any significance so I have no need to explain it.
Here's where you, like
so many CTs before you, fail to understand the difference between the WCR and the 26 volumes
of data, exhibits, testimony, etc.
You think the WCR is just the Reader's Digest version of the
26 volumes. The 26 volumes are a collection of raw data. Not all of it had any significance. The
checks from past employers is a perfect example of that. The 26 volumes is a repository of
everything that was collected during the course of the investigation. It was the job of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what had evidentiary value. Much of it did not
and was discarded as irrelevant.
The 888 page report contains the conclusions of the WC. There was no
need for them or anybody else to explain every item contained in the 26 volumes.
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.
The fact that you think the presence of those
past checks matters
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.This has to be one of the stupidest comments in internet history.
How do you know the 26 volumes were "raw data" when you admitted you never read them ?
Because somebody told you that ? And you always believe what you're told.
Stop making excuses for your laziness and read the testimony.
It's like saying that witness testimony in a murder case didn't matter, it was all raw data, and
all that mattered was the final summation by the prosecution.
Ridiculous.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:56:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.This has to be one of the stupidest comments in internet history.
How do you know the 26 volumes were "raw data" when you admitted you never read them ?
Because somebody told you that ? And you always believe what you're told. Stop making excuses for your laziness and read the testimony.
It's like saying that witness testimony in a murder case didn't matter,
it was all raw data, and
all that mattered was the final summation by the prosecution.
Ridiculous.
ROFLMAO
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:56:19?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.
This has to be one of the stupidest comments in internet history.
How do you know the 26 volumes were "raw data" when you admitted you never read them ?
Because somebody told you that ? And you always believe what you're told. >Stop making excuses for your laziness and read the testimony.
It's like saying that witness testimony in a murder case didn't matter, it was all raw data, and
all that mattered was the final summation by the prosecution.
Ridiculous.
ROFLMAO
There is your problem there...
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:27:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:56:19?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The only thing that matters was the 888 page report.This has to be one of the stupidest comments in internet history.
How do you know the 26 volumes were "raw data" when you admitted you never read them ?
I said I've never read them ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:44:51 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,854 |