Link to DuBord's article. aka "Unruh article."
There are links to both of the articles now under discussion.
In post #48 you said: You're confused. Nobody's claiming that Moses's tablet contains the Bill of Rights. ... but the author's conspiracy theory concerns the East Frieze. ... *That's* the tablet the author is writing about, *not* Moses's tablet.
From the WND article...When he asked, his recent tour guide denied there were any Ten Commandments representations in the Supreme Court building, he said.
He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"
"Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. 'There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court,'" DuBord said he was told.
There are two separate incidents of denial that there were any other depictions of Moses holding the Ten Commandments cited in the WND article.
From the DuBord article...After the U.S. Supreme Court guide described the figures on that frieze, including Moses, she asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand and asked, “Are there any other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments in or on the U.S. Supreme Court.
snip
There was no hesitation to the guide’s response to my question of whether there were any other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments. Her answer was simply and unequivocally, “No.”
My last inquiry for the personnel at the Information Booth of the U.S. Supreme Court was this: “If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?” Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. She simply and confidently told me, “There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court.” I looked at her bewildered and used my body to describe the position in which Moses was holding the Ten Commandments. She again responded, “No, sir, there is nothing like that here.”
There are the same two incidents of denial as in the WND article. The author is definitely writing about much more than just the East Frieze inside the SC chambers as he says, in both articles, that they not only deny that the tablets on the doors are the Ten Commandments they deny that any other depiction of Moses with the TCs (other than the South Wall Frieze) exist at or on the SC.
You flatly said that the author's "conspiracy theory" ('report' to normal people) was about the East Frieze and not Moses' tablets. That is flatly and clearly wrong.
Correction: DuBord's article is just DuBord's article, period; it's not aka "Unruh article". Note that the World Net Daily article was written by Bob Unruh. Bob Unruh's WND article is *about* DuBord's article (which of course is why Unruh's article links to DuBord's article). But when I talked about Unruh or his article, I was talking only about the WND article by Bob Unruh--the WND article is the crap article and Unruh is the crap author I was talking about. Hope that clarifies things.
You flatly said that the author's "conspiracy theory" ('report' to normal people) was about the East Frieze and not Moses' tablets. That is flatly and clearly wrong.
People who don't understand what I'm talking about might assume I meant "report". But I said "conspiracy theory" because that's exactly what I meant. The "report" would be either DuBord's entire article or Unruh's entire article. The "conspiracy theory", which is what the first third to half of both Unruh's and DuBord's articles are all about, concerns only the East Wall Frieze. That's the frieze DuBord went off to investigate after the tour. Remember DuBord's trip to the 14th St. Oscar Solomon Straus memorial? And remember his investigation into the various rewrites of the U.S. Supreme Court Handbook? He's got pictures of various rewrites with sections highlighted, etc. That's all supposed to be evidence of his claim that the letter from Adolph Weinman, the East Wall Frieze's sculptor, is a forgery. Remember? *That's* the conspiracy theory I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the entire report; if I was talking about a report as a whole, I would have said "report".
Now, to finish this, let me remind you of your comment to which I initially replied. You said:
if all the figures in the SC friezes are equal in import why are the rest still recognized for what they are yet Moses has been reduced to a non-entities and his tablets have been morphed into the Bill of Rights?And what I'm saying--*all* I wanted to say before all these countless tangents--is that there's nobody at the Supreme Court--either in real life or in either Unruh's article or DuBord's article--pointing to Moses holding the Ten Commandments on some frieze and claiming "That's not Moses" or "That's not the Ten Commandments in his hands." That's what your comment appeared to be claiming (similar to the other comments I mentioned in my prior reply), and that's what I was replying to.
And btw, when people talk about the Supreme Court friezes, they don't normally mean the East Pediment. The "friezes" are generally understood as being inside the building. There's no reason whatsoever for me to have assumed you were including the East Pediment in your comment about "the SC friezes". (Recall how in reply 70, after I had said, "Moses is not on the East Frieze at all", you dragged out the East Pediment as if it somehow refuted my comment. At that point it became clear that you had been confusing the East Wall Frieze with the East Pediment. In reply, I said, "If you're under the impression that the tour guide was claiming that's not Moses or that's not the Ten Commandments on the East Pediment, you're way wrong. The East Pediment wasn't part of the tour and wasn't even discussed by the tour guide." That right there should have been the end of our discussion.) Also btw, the SC tour guides don't normally take tourists outside the back of the building, so there's really no reason to expect that tour guide would have known who's on the East Pediment anyway. She's just a government employee after all.
Anyway, the triviality of this discussion is not worth the time consumption. The more I write, the more you misunderstand. I'm done. You can have the last word.