When the SN was built

[Richard Smith]

Only hypothetically.



Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.


And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

I smell something….

CTers have suggested many times that there should have been MORE prints on the rifle and bag if Oswald had handled it.  They note the absence of rifle oils etc on the bag.  And on and on.  It is a hopeless and impossible task to use facts, common sense, and logic on contrarians playing defense attorney.  When you use logic, they respond with illogic.  When you use illogic, they respond with logic.  A circle of futility. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

CTers have suggested many times that there should have been MORE prints on the rifle and bag if Oswald had handled it.  They note the absence of rifle oils etc on the bag.  And on and on.  It is a hopeless and impossible task to use facts, common sense, and logic on contrarians playing defense attorney.  When you use logic, they respond with illogic.  When you use illogic, they respond with logic.  A circle of futility.

It's revealing that every piece of evidence they demand be shown in the assassination of JFK to persuade them of Oswald's guilt can be provided in the shooting of Tippit. If they complain about the absence of "A" in one case it can be shown to exist in another. Their demands in the second case are met.

The two cases then can be a sort of test or comparison to show the sincerity of a person's demands.

So do they accept that evidence in the shooting of Tippit? Their demands have been satisfied, their questions answered: the same ones they want in the assassination of JFK. But again they reject the evidence there as well. The multiple witnesses, the physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence. Everything they wanted in one event can be found in the other. But they reject this too.

There are "good faith" arguments to be made. And "bad faith" ones too. Putting the two events side-by-side reveals the good ones from the bad.

Shorter: If you want to believe in a conspiracy, if you have some weird need to absolve Oswald, you can say and believe in a lot of strange things along the way. This is an example of it.

[Charles Collins]

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

And if there had been no LHO print presented as having been found in the sniper's nest we would have a loud chorus of Warren Gullibles asking "could he not have wiped the box clean?" Also, "doesn't this prove he wasn't framed for the crime?"

 

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

The photographic record indicates that many of those people who said they didn’t see LHO on the steps were, um, actually there during the assassination.

[Martin Weidmann]

Only hypothetically.

Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.


And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

I smell something….

Yet, we have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the stairs just after the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

Well, the WC seemed to think that. That's why they tried to discredit with a bogus argument and why they ignored Dorothy Garner completely.

The actual claim, by the LNs, is that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot, but there is not a shred of evidence for that claim. In fact, all the available evidence, considered in the correct context, makes it just about impossible that he could have gone down the stairs unseen, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. But that he wasn't seen isn't evidence that he wasn't there. You just don't get to assume that he was there. If you claim that he came down the stairs, you need to prove it.

And if there had been no LHO prints found in the sniper’s nest we would have a loud chorus of nay sayers and CTers asking “how could he have built the sniper’s nest and left no prints?” Also, “how could he have even been in the sniper’s nest and left no prints?”

This is just silly. There is no evidence that Oswald or anybody else placed those boxes in that corner. They all must have left prints, but - as Latona tells us - prints on cardboard don't hold very well or very long. The whole fingerprint thing has no evidentiary value one way of the other.

I smell something….

Let me guess... your own BS perhaps?

[Jack Nessan]

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you. You claimed that I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything like that. You made it up. It’s a strawman. Now what was the thing I posted that was “completely wrong”? And answer that without making up another strawman. Use a direct quote.

The only one who seems to be in anguish is you, trying to do backflips to turn this into evidence of murder.

We know nothing of the kind.

 , how? And even if this is true, this is evidence of …. what? What about the way Frazier said he carried his package? And the fact that they described a different package than the magic, invisible CE142?

  “Proven” how?

Also  . Brennan didn’t even say that.

Maybe not for somebody who bases his “understandings” on claims that are false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant.

No, Strawman has just now replaced gaslighting as the popular term to use to escape a faltering argument. 

There were only three possible choices to build the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO. Pick your favorite. All of the men working on the 6th floor that morning was cleared. LHO’s prints are on every piece of evidence. He purchased the rifle and had no alibi during the assassination. The Rolling Reader boxes specifically have his prints on them and were moved from the other 8 boxes and they were specifically used in the construction of the rifle rest. They were moved there for the express purpose of being used to build the SN. Brennan saw and stated he saw the second shot being fired from the SN. 

[Alan Ford]

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

The photographic record indicates that many of those people who said they didn’t see LHO on the steps were, um, actually there during the assassination.

Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?

[Alan Ford]

It's revealing that every piece of evidence they demand be shown in the assassination of JFK to persuade them of Oswald's guilt can be provided in the shooting of Tippit. If they complain about the absence of "A" in one case it can be shown to exist in another. Their demands in the second case are met.

The two cases then can be a sort of test or comparison to show the sincerity of a person's demands.

The 'investigating' authorities (your heroes) felt a lot more confident they could make a Tippit charge stick than a JFK charge. Knowing as they did, very early on, that Mr. Oswald had been in the doorway for the motorcade, they couldn't go as far there towards implicating him definitively as shooter: too big a hostage to fortune. So their shenanigans went all in on circumstantial/'best inference' stuff. 

Hence (e.g.) the paraffin tests: 'incriminating' for Tippit; 'inconclusive' for JFK.

 

[Charles Collins]

Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?

No photographic evidence of anyone who stated they didn’t see LHO on the stairs near or on the stairs between the sixth floor and second floor during the time in question. That’s one significant difference.