LHO's shirt

[John Iacoletti]

Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?

This is a classic WC apologist example of trying to have it both ways.  If there was gunpowder residue found then Oswald did it.  If there wasn't gunpowder residue, then The Conspirators (tm) would certainly have planted some anyway, therefore Oswald did it.

[Walt Cakebread]

What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.

Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?

In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.

why not falsify the paraffin test?

How would you do that?

 "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?"

Sure...Why not?.....and create possible leaks of the impending coup? A classic example of....Two's company...Three's a crowd

"Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?"

Obviously, this would mean that everybody was part of the conspiracy, and nobody would challenge the assertion...

[Bill Chapman]

As per usual, you've got it backwards.

If the plan was multiple shots from different shooters, they still only would have had one patsy. So it would be; shooting Kennedy from different locations and, in the cover up fase, make it look that only one man shot him from behind. If this is what happened, CTs rightly claim there had been a shot from the front.

Just make sure that 'the patsy' was a crappy shooter with crappy ammo and a crappy rifle... like you lot have been claiming forever it seems. Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting.

 

[John Iacoletti]

Just make sure that 'the patsy' was a crappy shooter with crappy ammo and a crappy rifle... like you lot have been claiming forever it seems. Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting. From the back.

Oh goody, another Chapman "you lot" strawman.  Isn't that special?

[Walt Cakebread]

Oh goody, another Chapman "you lot" strawman.  Isn't that special?

Ya Know,  Chappie is a little like a pesky mosquito ....So we can know that sooner or later the annoying little pest will get his ass slapped.

[William Pilgrim]

What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.

Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?

In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.

Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?
 

[Walt Cakebread]

Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?

Apparently you missed the post earlier in this thread that shows that the FBI lab DID in fact examine Lee's shirt ( the one that he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, the one with the button down collar)   If they had found gun powder residue on that shirt ( as they certainly would have if he had fired a gun) they would have published that information in bold headlines.

Here's Pat Speer's post......
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.

As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)

[John Iacoletti]

Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?

There isn't even any agreement on what clothes Oswald was wearing when the shooting occurred.

But yeah, you would have expected there to have been a real investigation.