When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

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

No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

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

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 

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.

Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

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.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

Here is what Latobna really explained.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?

[Alan Ford]

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.

If it looks like a man in a very light-colored open-neck tshirt/shirt, then it ain't Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald!

 

[Richard Smith]

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.

You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes.  When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there."  Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.  And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.  You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.   It is very amusing.   In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!  The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication.  HA HA HA.   Round and round down the rabbit hole.

[Charles Collins]

Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?

It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights.


Articulating the limbs, head, etc. of the human figures isn't feasible in the software that I use. So, I typically improvise. Those images were generated a few years ago. And my model has evolved (in some of the details) since then. It is still a work-in-progress and is rather crude compared to James' & Jerry's models. I used a male figure that is supposed to be sitting crossed-legged on the floor and tilted it forward 22-degrees such that it appears he is looking in the same direction as the rifle aim. The rifle is aimed at the location of the limo at Z313, including the elevation difference. The angle of elevation of the rifle is 17-degrees. I updated the position of the rifle so that it appears the sniper has the scope to his right eye. The rifle obviously isn't a model of a Carcano or proportioned and shouldn't be considered anything other than a crude model. But I think it is adequate for the purpose of showing that the sniper would not be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle obscuring Brenan's view.






Here is Brenan's viewpoint. Please note that some of the window parts are a work in progress and need to be either moved or removed. The only thing that has changed is the viewpoint (location of the camera (aka: virtual visitor) The rifle is still aimed down at 17-degrees. It looks almost level from that lower elevation (looking up from below). That is another example of how photograph angles can fool us. This also agrees with the old image from Brenan's viewpoint that I posted earlier.

[Martin Weidmann]

You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes.  When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there."  Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.  And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.  You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.   It is very amusing.   In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!  The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication.  HA HA HA.   Round and round down the rabbit hole.

You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes. 

Thank you for agreeing with me. His prints on those boxes have indeed no evidentiary value, regardless of how much spin you want to put on it.

Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Even if true, which it isn't, a single unidentifiable print is still one too many. You can not simply ignore that some unidentified person must have left that print!

And it wasn't one print. Latona found unidentifiable prints on at least two boxes;

Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.

Latona also confirmed those unidentifiable prints are not Oswald's;

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.

The bottom line is simple; somebody, who was not Oswald left prints on at least two boxes.

Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag. 

Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?

No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.

Indeed! So what was really going on?

And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.

And there is the pathetic "The DPD said so" claim again. Your blind admiration for a police force that was responsible for countless innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit.

You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime. 

There is no inconsistency. If the evidence was fabricated, it was done so to link Oswald to the crime. That would have been the sole purpose. However, as it would be false evidence it proves nothing at all, or is that to difficult to understand for you?

the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president,

Well, we know for a fact that they did fabricate evidence. You only need to look at the marks made on the jacket by officers who were not in the chain of custody. That's falsifying the chain of custody. We also know for a fact that the DPD claimed the BY photos were found during the second search (with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon and that this claim was false because an FBI agent showed one of the photos to Michael Paine on Friday evening and Fritz had the photo when he interrogated Oswald on Saturday morning.

[John Iacoletti]

In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

What part of “unidentified” do you not understand?

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   

Poor “Richard”. He thinks any of this is evidence of murder.

In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!

Nobody ever accused the DPD of being competent. They don’t need to be when “cop said so” is good enough for people like you.


 

[Alan Ford]

No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.

Indeed! So what was really going on?

Good question, Mr. Weidmann!

Let us-------for the sake purely of argument--------be naive enough to admit into evidence, as solid evidence wholly free of taint or suspicion, the fingerprints on rifle, box(es) & bag.

What we then have is evidence consistent with six scenarios:

a) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, acting alone) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
b) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, as part of a conspiracy) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
c) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as the shooter
d) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as an accomplice
e) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement
f) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) naively left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement which his double-crossing fellow-conspirators did not take care of, because they wished it to come to the investigators' attention.

We then must ask ourselves the question:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, would they or would they not take any pains to incriminate him?

To put this question in another form:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, how surprising would it be for evidence incriminating him to be found?
Would it not in fact be more surprising if no incriminating evidence were found?

So......... the thing is pretty much a wash. The very best the Warren Gullibles have is evidence consistent with six different scenarios, only one of which fits their own beloved theory.

And that, note, is the very furthest the Warren Gullibles can get on the most generous reading of the evidence provided by the 'investigating' authorities who were under tremendous pressure to pin the crime on him and on him alone. Not even that super-naive allowance enables the Warren Gullibles to put Mr. Oswald at that window at that time firing that rifle. Because all the 'evidence' he handled certain items at an indeterminable time may be taken to cut both ways: self-incrimination vs. frame-up.