Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Backes probably realizes by now that they really were just covering the existing floor with plywood. But, does he admit that he was wrong? No! Why? Because being stupid means never having to say you're wrong.

This is by Jerry Organ, friend of John McAdams: 

"After the move, it was noticed that the upper floors had become oil-soaked from items which Sexton had stored, and the oil threatened to penetrate the cardboard of the Depository's book cartons. To remedy, Roy S. Truly, Warehouse Manager, began a process to cover the upper floors with plywood sheets, which necessitated moving certain amounts of the cartons over one or two aisles to allow the floor-laying crew access."

That's the official story, and he stated earlier that Sexton was a wholesale grocer. I've heard it different ways, including that it was "moisture" not "oil". But, if it was oil from foodstuffs, what could the foodstuffs have been? It could not have been oil per se because oil comes in bottles. It could not have been anything canned either. 

But, whatever it was, it's hard to believe it was enough oil to affect the books. Wood is porous; it absorbs oil. Don't people often apply oil to wood? They rub it in; the wood doesn't stay oily. 

And if the floor was too oily, couldn't they just clean off the excess? Even if they just wiped it, it would have removed most of the oil or enough of it to render what remained harmless to the books. That looked like a nice hardwood floor, the kind of floor to which people often apply oil or polish. The idea that they would deal with the problem by covering it with plywood seems ridiculous. Do you know of a single other time in the history of floors that such a problem was dealt with in that way? 

I was told that the previous tenant at the TSBD was a grocer who specialized in meats. If it was canned goods or dry packaged goods, there would have been no problem from oil.  

This is their story. It's not my story. They have to account for why they would cover a nice hardwood floor with cheap plywood.

As you look at that, does it look oily? Does it look nicked. As you look at that floor, would you have any inclination to cover it with plywood?

Backshit accepts this story. He doesn't accept the story of the bus ride and the cab ride, but he accepts this story. Dipshit.

But, it's not the story Lovelady told. He said they were covering the floor because it had nicks in it. That's what he told Brooten. But, it's hard to imagine why anybody would get the idea to cover a hardwood floor with plywood just because of a few nicks. I can't even see any nicks. I see what looks like scratches, but would you cover a hardwood floor with plywood because of a few scratches? As if that should matter in a warehouse. Even if it was nicks, what problem do nicks cause? A nick in the floor doesn't damage the books, does it?

I also found this statement by Jerry Organ. Who accepts it at face value from this lone-nutter? Anyone? Anyone? 

  Oil--presumably cooking oil from Sexton wholesale containers that had broken--had been grossly cleaned up from the floor but some oil had soaked into the wood. This, I think, became a problem when heavy cardboard boxes sat for long periods and gradually absorbed the oil. It would have made the boxes weak and maybe damaged the books inside.

We are supposed to believe that, huh? That they dealt with oil on the floor by covering it with plywood? How many containers of cooking oil broke? And on how many floors? How is it possible that that much accidental breakage took place? And it actually spread all over such that they had to cover every square inch of the floor with plywood? That was their solution? 

You think Dallas Police invented a bus ride and cab ride for Oswald and a whole witness in the form of Mary Bledsoe, but yet, you believe this shit? 

Fucking Backshit. What a moron. You've heard of batshit crazy? Well, this is backshit crazy. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.