When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

From “Eyewitness to History”, by Howard L. Brenan, page 7:

Published 24 years later and highly embellished.  Yeah, I'm sure Brennan really thought "my God, they're going to kill them all".  What a coinky-dink.

[Richard Smith]

I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman. Almost like being back in grade school with silly nicknames.

The term strawman is not a silly nickname. It seems you don't know what the meaning of the term is,


Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes. The same as his rifle, same as the bag.

None of this is true.

There were in fact latent prints on the boxes which could not be identified (conveniently only Oswald's prints were identified).

There was no print on (or even a trace of a print having been lifted of) the rifle when the FBI lab in Washington examined the weapon!

And the bag that was allegedly found at the S/N wasn't the one Frazier or Randle saw Oswald carry that morning. Because of the type of tape used to make the bag, it had to have been made at the TSBD and there is no evidence whatsoever it ever left the TSBD, making it just a bag made from TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD. Oswald was never seen near the packing tables where the bag had to have been made, but we know for a fact that DPD officers were at that table and actually made a (allegedly duplicate) bag. Now what possible reason could they have had to make a duplicate of a bag, when they had the original?

How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull. 

[John Iacoletti]

I think the only strawman here is the individual who is always claiming everyone else is a strawman.

No, when you make up a claim to argue with (like "you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it"), that's a strawman.  I didn't say I think that.

No that was not your claim. I will quote it again for you. It was not about "handling" boxes it was about opening them and retrieving books. You are not able to tell what a box that was sealed looks like compared to when it is now opened up. This is not about all the boxes in the TSBD but just the four arranged by LHO to make a rifle rest and a place to sit. They were arranged to be used by the assassin. 

You don't know that any boxes "were used as a rifle rest" or "a place to sit".  Or even that they were "arranged" for that purpose.  This is pure speculation.

This post is about him doing his job retrieving books out of boxes not just mindlessly placing his hands on boxes.

This may shock you to hear, but sometimes employees have to move boxes in order to do their jobs too.

Again, there were three people on the 6th floor after everyone else left for lunch.

Are you suggesting that boxes were moved or prints were left after everyone else left for lunch on 11/22?  There is no basis for that.

Only LHO’s fingerprints were on the SN boxes.

You don't know that.

The same as his rifle

"His rifle", LOL.  Correction:  the CE139 rifle had prints by the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

, same as the bag.

You mean "the bag" that doesn't appear in any crime scene photos where it was allegedly found and that nobody can agree on where or when it was found, who found it, or how or if it was folded?  That "bag"?  The "bag" that you cannot demonstrate ever held a rifle?

No, Latona, he worked for the FBI. It is not the FBI and Latona.

What are you talking about now?  I didn't say "the FBI and Latona".  You claimed that "The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard".  Where did you get this idea?  What FBI testing?

[John Iacoletti]

How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull.

And your evidence that these boxes were "relating to the assassination" is.....what, exactly?  Sounds like weak prosecuting attorney nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

How many of these "prints" remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched these boxes?  This is all just more weak defense attorney nonsense.  No reasonable person can believe the explanation for Oswald's prints on all these objects relating to the assassination was just bad luck or the police fabricating evidence to frame a dead guy.  That is contrarian bull.

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".

[Jack Nessan]

No, when you make up a claim to argue with (like "you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it"), that's a strawman.  I didn't say I think that.

You don't know that any boxes "were used as a rifle rest" or "a place to sit".  Or even that they were "arranged" for that purpose.  This is pure speculation.

This may shock you to hear, but sometimes employees have to move boxes in order to do their jobs too.

Are you suggesting that boxes were moved or prints were left after everyone else left for lunch on 11/22?  There is no basis for that.

You don't know that.

"His rifle", LOL.  Correction:  the CE139 rifle had prints by the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

You mean "the bag" that doesn't appear in any crime scene photos where it was allegedly found and that nobody can agree on where or when it was found, who found it, or how or if it was folded?  That "bag"?  The "bag" that you cannot demonstrate ever held a rifle?

What are you talking about now?  I didn't say "the FBI and Latona".  You claimed that "The FBI testing indicated fingerprints lasted a maximum of 1 day on cardboard".  Where did you get this idea?  What FBI testing?

NOUN

strawman (noun)

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

 

This is what I thought. You have no idea what it means. Realizing you have a faulty understanding of the JFK Assassination in no way constitutes a straw argument. Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

 

Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not. You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

 

There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

NOUN

strawman (noun)

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

This is what I thought. You have no idea what it means. Realizing you have a faulty understanding of the JFK Assassination in no way constitutes a straw argument. Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not. You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

This is absolutely a strawman;

So you think BRWilliams or/and Givens built it and made sure they used boxes with LHO's fingerprints on them.

Claiming that John thinks that when he has never made such a claim is, just like the description says;

"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:"

In other words, you falsely attributed an incorrect claim to John for the sole purpose of subsequently being able to knock it down!

Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

John is reasonable enough to accept that his opinion is not a fact. You, on the other hand, seem to consider every opinion you have to be factual.

An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located.

That is indeed one possible explanation. The problem is that you can't rule out other explanations, which makes your entire argument a moot point.

All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

How could he rule them out when there were unidentifiable prints on those 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.

So, if it is true that no other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes, and the unidentifiable prints did not belong to Oswald, who else touched those boxes in the roughly 24 hours before the assassination?

[John Iacoletti]

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

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.
 

Do you honestly believe your contrarian opinion is considered a fact?

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.
 

Basically you present no argument. What little you have stated you were quick to claim you did not.

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.

You even misrepresented what Latona stated and offered it as a fact. 

 

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.

There were 10 Rolling Reader boxes. Only two of them ended up in the SN where they were used in the construction of the rifle rest and seat. Those two had LHO’s prints on them. They contained blocks not books. As per your statement of LHO opening the boxes and retrieving books, that did not happen and in way is an explanation for his prints being on the boxes. An explanation for his prints being on the two boxes is he carried them there from where the other eight boxes were located. All the other TSBD employees fingerprints, who had access to the 6th floor were ruled out by Latona.

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".