Why are the CT's so obsessed with disproving the innocent Bus and Cab rides?

[Richard Smith]

It would matter if perhaps Oswald did some pushups on the paper bag and left a complete set of fingerprints on it but I'll quote---If the bag was handled by the fingers...where are the rest of the prints? If the bag was created by Oswald in the first place...where is the abundance of those prints? Why only a left pinkie? Now that is what is hilarious
If the bag was carried like a suitcase..then why did as Frazier described ...like if someone were carrying some magazines or a couple of phonograph records or heavens...a couple of curtain rods tucked under the arm?

Mr Latona testified that he examined the fingerprints the very next day after the assassination. Wasn't that expeditious? His rather verbose testimony took longer...  https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/latona.htm
However Mr Wittmus unsworn statement [months later BTW] was fortunately much briefer---Yeah...whatever he said
It appears from his testimony that Mr Mandella [any relation to Nelson?] identified these prints from photographs...And this topic of buses and cabs has drifted far enough huh?

If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.  Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  No matter how much Oswald handled the bag with his bare hands (and no one knows that) simply touching a bag doesn't necessarily mean that it will leave a recoverable print using 1963 technology.  And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?  They are framing him and making all this evidence up?  So why not go all out?

[Martin Weidmann]

If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.  Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  No matter how much Oswald handled the bag with his bare hands (and no one knows that) simply touching a bag doesn't necessarily mean that it will leave a recoverable print using 1963 technology.  And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?  They are framing him and making all this evidence up?  So why not go all out?

If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.

But it doesn't link the bag to the crime, nor does one print mean anything more than Oswald touched the paper at some point in time

Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.

Wow, hold on there for a second. Many people are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene, but that doesn't mean they are all criminals. People get wrongfully convicted all the time.

And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?

Because an all encompassing entity, you call the "conspirators", which has the liberty to operate in some sort of vacuum, doesn't exist. Those kind of people only exist in movies. In your fantasy conspiracy world everybody is in on it, which is exactly the kind of exaggeration we are so used to coming from you.

So why not go all out?

Because the best lie is the one that stays as close to the truth as possible..... Could that be it?

[Jerry Freeman]

If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.  Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  No matter how much Oswald handled the bag with his bare hands (and no one knows that) simply touching a bag doesn't necessarily mean that it will leave a recoverable print using 1963 technology.  And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?  They are framing him and making all this evidence up?  So why not go all out?

Nice try. Silly as hell but nice try. Go here and lets stay on topic if we can----
Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest......
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2425.msg117692.html#msg117692

[Alan Ford]

Afraid I can't see these either, Mr O'Meara, but thank you for trying to help! Obviously an issue at my end (firewall settings??).

[Alan Ford]

Tony Fratini and I had a similar debate and Tony established that the following Allen photo was taken about 3:15 which according to the shadows seems about right, and he concluded that this photo showed nail holes which "proves" that the window sill weather protector was gone and since the photos taken of the bag being taken out of the building were photographed at about 2:20 therefore

Hasn't Mr Pat Speer determined that Det. Leslie Montgomery's watch shows the time to be 3:00?

Tony concluded that the bag was being held up by the window strip from the sill?


Tony Fratini's graphic

But a closer look shows that at the time the Allen photo was taken, that the window sill strip was still there and the Dallas Police took an almost identical photo and it also shows the strip to be still there. Therefore whatever was holding up the bag was not the window sill strip.

I still can't see the photos you are referencing here, Mr Mytton, but how about we address the question: what time was this photograph taken?

[Richard Smith]

Nice try. Silly as hell but nice try. Go here and lets stay on topic if we can----
Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest......
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2425.msg117692.html#msg117692

If it's "silly" why don't you rebut it instead of deflecting?  I was responding to your post where the topic was raised.

[Richard Smith]

If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.

But it doesn't link the bag to the crime, nor does one print mean anything more than Oswald touched the paper at some point in time

Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.

Wow, hold on there for a second. Many people are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene, but that doesn't mean they are all criminals. People get wrongfully convicted all the time.

And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?

Because an all encompassing entity, you call the "conspirators", which has the liberty to operate in some sort of vacuum, doesn't exist. Those kind of people only exist in movies. In your fantasy conspiracy world everybody is in on it, which is exactly the kind of exaggeration we are so used to coming from you.

So why not go all out?

Because the best lie is the one that stays as close to the truth as possible..... Could that be it?

Step one is to link the bag to Oswald.  One print does that.  The person that I was responding to was asking why there were not multiple prints on the bag.  The answer is that it doesn't matter.  One print does it.  We have no idea if Oswald wore gloves while making the bag and even if he didn't not every touching of the bag would have left a print to be recovered using 1963 technology.  Whatever conspiracy fantasies are entertained about this bag, there is no doubt that it is connected to him. 

[Alan Ford]

So you think they constructed this bag but then held the actual evidence (i.e. a wooden strip) with their bare hands?  Why would they do that?

The wooden strip was of evidentiary interest because the assassin might have touched it somewhere between its two ends. For a detective to hold it at one of the ends would thus not be a problem