When the SN was built

[Richard Smith]

What is really bull is claiming that only Oswald's prints were on those boxes, that Oswald's print was on the rifle and that a bag made from TSBD materials was found at the sniper's nest.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of those claims except "the DPD said so".

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?  Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.  Taking the old impossible standard of proof to a new level.  They were responsible for investigating the case.  They found Oswald's prints on the boxes, rifle, and bag.  Guilty.

[Martin Weidmann]

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?  Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.  Taking the old impossible standard of proof to a new level.  They were responsible for investigating the case.  They found Oswald's prints on the boxes, rifle, and bag.  Guilty.

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?

It doesn't matter. When there's only one print that remains unidentified the claim that only Oswald handled those boxes is nullified.
Latona found prints on at least two of the boxes which he could not identify.

Dismissing the evidence solely because the DPD "said so" is completely bizarre even from you.

There's nothing bizarre about it. The bag that was allegedly found at the sniper's nest was never photographed in situ and the print that allegedly came from the rifle was only produced by Day after Oswald was dead. In both cases all we have to "authenticate" both pieces of evidence is "the DPD said so"!

They were responsible for investigating the case.

And they made a complete mess of it. Fritz wanted Frazier to sign a confession on Friday evening and even threatened violence. Day concocted a bogus story to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one he had seen Oswald carry. Studebaker failed to take a photograph showing the bag in situ. Westbrook couldn't identify the cop who showed him where the white jacket was under a car, nor could he name the officer he gave the jacket to, nor could he explain how he got the jacket back at the police station or why it was marked by officers who were not even present or involved when the jacket was found. Hill walked around for at least two hours with a revolver that allegedly belonged to Oswald and had fellow officers in the DPD lunchroom make their mark on the revolver despite the fact that none of them was involved in Oswald's arrest, thus falsifying the chain of custody.

It goes on and on.... but for a superficial person like you "the DPD said so" is enough   

Besides, Hoover (and Katzenbach) had already decided that Oswald was the lone gunman before they had any evidence to support that conclusion, so don't tell me the DPD were in charge of theinvestigation. If they really were, Kennedy's autopsy would have taken place in Dallas, the limo would never have been flown back to Washington and none of the evidence would have been shipped to the FBI lab on Friday evening.

[Michael Walton]

Besides, Hoover (and Katzenbach) had already decided that Oswald was the lone gunman before they had any evidence to support that conclusion, so don't tell me the DPD were in charge of theinvestigation. If they really were, Kennedy's autopsy would have taken place in Dallas, the limo would never have been flown back to Washington and none of the evidence would have been shipped to the FBI lab on Friday evening.

Yeah, can you imagine what would happen in any other case in the history of jurisprudence if the judge wrote a note to the prosecution saying something along the lines of what Nick wrote? "You should make it your goal to make the accused look as guilty as possible so the public will buy into his/her guilt." Think of the outrage.

Yet, no one here ever seems to think that's important.

[Charles Collins]

No mention of "sniping", or even a rifle.

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.  So on what basis did he decide it was "the man that I saw previous"?  Or was it just an assumption?  He doesn't say and they didn't ask.

But either way, Brennan observed no "sniper" when the epileptic event occurred.

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.


Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.









A hypothetical question for you:

If you walk into a room with a bunch of people in it and soon see a man who is standing away from everybody. And you notice his demeanor is a bit odd. Then say about seven minutes later this same man walks up to you and for no apparent reason punches you in the nose. Did you see the bully soon after you walked into the room?

[Jack Nessan]

Which is exactly what you did.  You claimed I made the proposition that "BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them".  Strawman.
 
I never claimed that any of my opinions were facts.  That's yet another strawman.  You're really racking them up.  And calling an opinion "contrarian" doesn't somehow make your opinions correct.
 
Sure I did.  My argument is that fingerprints on boxes in the TSBD tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.  Despite your creative speculation for how they got there.

 

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?
Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.
Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?
Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.
Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

A made-up "explanation" that has no substantiation whatsoever is not an explanation -- it's a fantasy.  You have no evidence that they were used in the construction of any rifle rest and seat -- that's pure speculation.  You have no evidence that LHO moved them there, or when they were moved, or for what purpose -- that's pure speculation.  You're ignoring that people who handle boxes don't always leave identifiable prints, at least one print was never identified, and not all the employees in the building were fingerprinted.  Therefore you cannot state as a fact that "Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes".

So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.

 

What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.

 

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

 

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.

 

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

 

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 

 

 

 

 

Here is what Latobna really explained.

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

 

 

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. Latona.

No.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona.

Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

 

[James Hackerott]

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.


Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.









A hypothetical question for you:

If you walk into a room with a bunch of people in it and soon see a man who is standing away from everybody. And you notice his demeanor is a bit odd. Then say about seven minutes later this same man walks up to you and for no apparent reason punches you in the nose. Did you see the bully soon after you walked into the room?

Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!
 

[Martin Weidmann]

So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.

 

What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.

 

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

 

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.

 

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

 

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 

 

 

 

 

Here is what Latobna really explained.

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

 

 

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. Latona.

No.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona.

Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

You argue like a teenager. Why is that?

And you also constantly violate one of the forum rules;

"There must be no more than one single line of empty space between any written text, including quotes or posted images."

[Charles Collins]

Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!

Thanks James!