Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[John Iacoletti]

I've already told you twice now why Day would know the date of that photo.  You ignore it, but it doesn't mean I haven't answered you.

That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

If you can't prove that Day was wrong about the date of the photo then you're only grandstanding.  Typical.

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh, so it (the photo) in no way shows that the evidence "could easily have been" contaminated before Stombaugh's analysis.

Another circular argument and a tautology.  The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh because Day said so, and Day was right because Day said so, and it doesn't show that the evidence could have been contaminated because Day was right.

[John Iacoletti]

When you have to lie in an attempt to prove a point, you have no credibility.

I have never said that it is insignificant that the bag could have been contaminated.  I just haven't seen anyone post anything to show that it was. 

If you wish, I can run around here attributing false statements and beliefs about you, too.  Why do you want to play that game?  Don't you think it's a bit dishonest?

Don't misrepresent my position.

I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

You're a hypocrite.

[John Iacoletti]

This photo explains ...WHY...  There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.   



The sack is lying on the blanket.....

Is there anyone who examined the bag who said that there was only a single fiber found inside the sack?

[Walt Cakebread]

Is there anyone who examined the bag who said that there was only a single fiber found inside the sack?

Yes ....It's in an FBI report.    I made the mistake of saying that there were fibers found INSIDE of the sack  many years ago..... Someone corrected me and posted the FBI report  hat says there was only a single fiber found in the sack.

[Bill Brown]

This photo explains ...WHY...  There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.   



The sack is lying on the blanket.....

But if that photo was taken AFTER Stombaugh analyzed the bag and found the fibers, then it means nothing.

[Bill Brown]

That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

Another circular argument and a tautology.  The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh because Day said so, and Day was right because Day said so, and it doesn't show that the evidence could have been contaminated because Day was right.

That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

Then show that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.  Fair enough?

[Bill Brown]

I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

You're a hypocrite.

I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

Of course it's a possibility that contamination could have occurred.  But, a photo taken three days after Stombaugh analyzed those items doesn't prove contamination.

I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

The five shot scenario in the Tippit shooting is most definitely my opinion.  I've always stated it only as my opinion.

You're a hypocrite.

How so?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes ....It's in an FBI report.    I made the mistake of saying that there were fibers found INSIDE of the sack  many years ago..... Someone corrected me and posted the FBI report  hat says there was only a single fiber found in the sack.

I'd be interested to see that report.