After Backes claimed that there was carbon paper, including a white original, and then pink, yellow, and green copies, Brian Pete changed the story. He doesn't want to go with that. Now keep in mind that these bastards have no basis to claim knowledge of what was done in 1963; they weren't there. And since they don't agree with each other about how it was, it means that one of them, by necessity, has to be wrong.
But, the gist of it is that Brian Pete claims to know that there was a white original, a pink copy; that it was carbonless method; and that somehow white copies were made of the white original.
Before I address this I shall point out how absurd and uproarious it is that Brian Pete continues to maintain that the Dallas Police confiscated Jack Ruby's used drawers. Even though I have pointed out a thousand times that they didn't take Oswald's drawers, that they took his outer shirt and forced him to go around in in just a t-shirt, which he complained about, but that is the only clothing intrusion they foisted on him. Yet, we are supposed to believe that with Ruby, they stripped him naked and replaced everything on his body, including his drawers.
What is the rational for the conflicting handling? Why would they treat Ruby differently than Oswald? It isn't just something you can gloss over. It has to be explained; convincingly explained. And if you can't explain it, then it defaults to being a lie and a fraud. That's the way it is. Of course, Brian Pete made no attempt to explain why they took the man's underpants. I don't think the Cherokee would do that, Brian. And if the Cherokee wouldn't do it, then there is no reason to think that the Dallas Police would do it.
There is a burden, and it's not on me. It's on those who assert that the Dallas Police took the man's underwear. We don't accept that just because it's typed on a piece of paper. Just because you accept it, I don't have to, and I do not. Comprende?
So, I don't accept what's written on the document, and I don't accept your explanation for the discrepancies between copies. You directly contradicted Backes without pointing that out that you did because you don't want to upset the fake-bus-and-cab-ride-espouser, do you? Well, I don't mind upsetting him.
But, I am really starting to wonder if you are MORE stupid than Backes is. That's because you've got to be mighty stupid to ridicule the idea of the underwear change, when YOU are the one who is espousing it.
Yeah, that's pretty hilarious, but if you are going to mock, as being ridiculous, the very thing you are claiming, it's your own credibility that you are dashing. That's right; Oswald didn't get any underwear. And I called the Dallas City Jail and found out that today, in 2016, they don't give out underwear; they don't give out uniforms; they don't give out anything. So, why should we believe that they did it with Ruby? Just because it's typed on a piece of paper? Is that it? It's the White Man's paper, Brian, and he types with forked tongue. Ask your Chief; he'll tell you.
The property receipt did not "show" that they confiscated Ruby's underwear. The property receipt "stated" that they confiscated Ruby's underwear. Now, do you, or do you not know that difference in meaning between "show" and "state" or do I have to translate it into Cherokee?
So, after Backes said there was an original white copy and then carbon paper between pink, green, and yellow copies, Brian Pete claims to know that it was a carbonless two-page system: one white and the other pink. Then he claims that the discrepancies between the white copies exist because white copies were made of the original white copy.
I have found this about the history of carbonless copying:
Although the photocopier probably struck the biggest blow to carbon paper and other early methods of copying, a technology was developed around the same time with the potential to eliminate carbon paper entirely. NCR, or No Carbon Required paper, was developed by the National Cash Register Company in 1954 (Nielsen, 1983). This process relied on the pressure of a pen or typewriter to induce a chemical reaction between different coatings on adjacent sheets of paper. The original was produced by the pen or typewriter, while the chemical reaction left a blue copy sharply delineated on subsequent pages.
A blue copy? So, the copied printing on the subsequent pages was blue. But, the printing on the pink copy of the property invoice is black.
Remember who we are dealing with: a guy who claims that Lovelady merged his arrow into Frazier's making them appear as one, and Joseph Ball let it ride, even though he could have had two distinct arrows pointing to Doorman instead of one. He also claims that fibers from Oswald's shirt stuck to the butt of the rifle from a previous outing of shooting in that shirt, not because he wore it to work that day. But, it's ridiculous. First, he doesn't know that Oswald ever went shooting in that shirt. Supposedly, the rifle was disassembled and wrapped in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and hadn't been opened since Marina drove back with Ruth from New Orleans in September. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald was sneaking into Ruth Paine's garage on other occasions, taking the rifle, assembling it, practicing with it, disassembling it, and sneaking it back into the garage. And there is no evidence that he ever shot it in New Orleans. The whole idea takes the idea of a stretch and stretches it beyond anyone's imagination. But, that's what this moron does. As I said, he may actually be more stupid than Joseph Backes.
Now, as far as the content of the invoice, again, I have to say that the very idea of stripping Ruby of his underwear is utterly preposterous, like they had police-approved underwear that all detainees were forced to wear. It is so stupid, it's hard to imagine anything more stupid. And Brian Pete is so stupid that he doesn't realize that the best thing he can do here is just shut the fuck up about it. You don't defend this shit- if you have any sense at all.
Let's look at this from the Wizard:
Ralph, I found a few references to Ruby's underwear in 'Dallas and the Jack Ruby Trial: Memoir of Judge Joe B. Brown, Sr.', but the relevant witness is Sergeant Patrick Dean, who had to be one of the complicit cops.
'They arrived, said Dean, while Ruby was standing stripped to his underwear shorts, bare-footed, with one spot on his face red from a bruise received in the corridor of the jail.
(Note the lack of a comma between underwear and shorts: he means under-shorts, rather than all underwear. Also: some people use 'bare-footed' to mean without shoes - or without shoes and socks. At any rate, there is no mention of new, black socks or new shoes.)
Note first that we have no way of corroborating any of this- it could all be bull shit. But, it does report Ruby being stripped to his underwear. So, there's Ruby, in his underwear, meaning his underpants, having a discussion with Officer Dean and Secret Service Agent Sorrels. That's pretty strange in itself. But, as you read it, try, if you can, to continue it further to get Ruby completely naked, where he strips off his underwear. Does someone say to him the following?
"Jack, you're going to have to take off those underwear and put on a pair that I give you because you need to be in our underwear; it's a Department policy."
First, let's remember how this started: it started with the penguins.
How, after a thing like that, could you go to having this civil, first-name calling conversation, "Jack, this is Mr. Sorrels, etc." Just minutes before, Ruby reportedly tried to shoot Leavelle after he shot Oswald, and only the super-human strength of LC Graves saved Leavelle's life. But, just minutes after that, he's back to being good old Jack Ruby again? And good old Jack needs to get out of his good old drawers so that his sweaty, dirty underpants can be put in Bin #N-18 with his other belongings? That is both disgusting and preposterous.
But, I have to say that the most damning thing of all is that Oswald was not changed out of his pants, not his shoes, not his t-shirt, not his underpants nor anything else. They took his outer shirt from him for two reasons:
1) because he was the spitting image of the Man in the doorway in his outer shirt
2) because he looked more like a derelict, a bum in the tattered t-shirt, and they were perfectly willing to make Oswald the only one dressed like that in the lineup, which he complained about. "How come these other guys have a shirt, and I don't?" That's what he said, and it was a very fair question.
But, it is simply preposterous, as in utterly insane, to think that they had a policy at the Dallas Police Department to confiscate the underwear of detained individuals. And again, the smartest thing my opposition could do is just shut the fuck about it. But, to actually face it head-on and defend it? To stand by it? I tell you: somebody has been smoking too much peyote.