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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument.
Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.
What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.
No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.
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.
Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.
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.
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.
Here is what Latobna really explained.
Mr. Latona.
Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. Latona.
Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. Eisenberg.
So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. Latona.
That is right.
Mr. Eisenberg.
You would not care, you say, though----
Mr. Latona.
No.
Mr. Eisenberg.
To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.
Mr. Latona.
Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did. 
