A straight line

[John Iacoletti]

Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

And you have just proved John that when you people don't get the response you want, you devolve into making insults. Well done John.

And you've proven that when your claims are subjected to any scrutiny, you are reduced to parroting the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" over and over again.

Ok, you've devolved into behaving like a sputtering lunatic.  Is that better?

[John Iacoletti]

How do you know that I'm just picking the one I like better? Do you have proof of that? What is your evidence? 
Now, are you claiming that the two prints Darby matched are not of Wallace's left little finger? What is your evidence for that?

Cute.  It's obvious that all you've got is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy in every aspect to this case.

[Tim Nickerson]

Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?

At the time of Latona's testimony there was more than one print that had not been positively identified. By mid September of 1964 , there was only one print that had not been positively identified. It may be that photograph #20 was of that never identified palm print.

[John Iacoletti]

Both of you morons should go back and read Latona's testimony again and this time, pay attention to what you're actually reading.

Another useless observation from Bill Brown.

[Wesley Johnson]

Cute.  It's obvious that all you've got is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy in every aspect to this case.

John it doesn't bother me a bit that you revert to name calling when someone doesn't play along with your weak little game. And before we are done you will again. But let's go this route. First off, I stand by the fact that by the time the investigation was over the only unidentified latent print was indeed a palmprint. Let's say I believe that there was an unidentified "fingerprint", on Box B. Are you claiming that, that print was the print that McClellan and Harrison gave to Nathan Darby and he matched it to the print from the exemplar fingerprint card?

[John Iacoletti]

First off, I stand by the fact that by the time the investigation was over the only unidentified latent print was indeed a palmprint.

What you "stand by" is completely irrelevant.  Both the Warren Report and the WC exhibits point to at least one unidentified fingerprint on box B and a supposedly "unidentifiable" fingerprint on Box A.

Let's say I believe that there was an unidentified "fingerprint", on Box B. Are you claiming that, that print was the print that McClellan and Harrison gave to Nathan Darby and he matched it to the print from the exemplar fingerprint card?

You really are incapable of getting this, aren't you?  You stated as a fact that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Stop pretending that I ever made a contrary claim.  You can either support your own claim with evidence or you cannot.

[Wesley Johnson]

What you "stand by" is completely irrelevant.  Both the Warren Report and the WC exhibits point to at least one unidentified fingerprint on box B and a supposedly "unidentifiable" fingerprint on Box A.

You really are incapable of getting this, aren't you?  You stated as a fact that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Stop pretending that I ever made a contrary claim.  You can either support your own claim with evidence or you cannot.

And you are ducking and dodging like you always do. I stand by what I said. Are you saying that the prints given to Darby are not of Wallace's left, little finger? Yes or no. The prints Darby was given did not come from the TSBD. McClellan and Harrison did not even try their little scam until 35 years after the assassination. 35 years in which a "latent fingerprint" was never mentioned by anyone. Are you claiming that this "unidentified fingerprint" was of Wallace's finger and came from the TSBD? And if so, how did McClellan and Harrison happen to get it? Where did they get it from?

[Martin Weidmann]

And you are ducking and dodging like you always do. I stand by what I said. Are you saying that the prints given to Darby are not of Wallace's left, little finger? Yes or no. The prints Darby was given did not come from the TSBD. McClellan and Harrison did not even try their little scam until 35 years after the assassination. 35 years in which a "latent fingerprint" was never mentioned by anyone. Are you claiming that this "unidentified fingerprint" was of Wallace's finger and came from the TSBD? And if so, how did McClellan and Harrison happen to get it? Where did they get it from?

I stand by what I said.

You just can't/won't provide any kind of evidence/proof for it.... what else is new?