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

[Colin Crow]

Those that propose the erroneous entry of March 15 as the explanation also would have to explain that Howlett as well as Day was incapable of recalling that the rods were submitted only after the more recent visit to the Paine?s garage. He signed off as receiving the rods back after processing. Did he not read what Day had written?

[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! 

[Alan Ford]

Those that propose the erroneous entry of March 15 as the explanation also would have to explain that Howlett as well as Day was incapable of recalling that the rods were submitted only after the more recent visit to the Paine?s garage. He signed off as receiving the rods back after processing. Did he not read what Day had written?

Indeed, Mr Crow---------those who wish to wish away the date(s) on this form would have us believe that Lieutenant Day and Agent Howlett were both complete morons! 

[Tim Nickerson]

Keep your myths to yourself

Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714

Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer ? typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy ? including cancer cells ? absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.

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.

All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy.

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

For once I agree totally with Tim. Best of luck, Walt, and as Tim says drop the sugar from your diet as much  as you can as tumours feed on sugar. You tried Cannabis oil? I can recommend it as a treatment.

A good friend of mine refused to undergo chemo. I personally think it was a bad move on his part. He chose instead to use cannabis oil and chaga. He did quite well for a long while. He eventually stopped using both and died of a heart attack shortly after.

[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.