When the SN was built

[Richard Smith]

Good question, Mr. Weidmann!

Let us-------for the sake purely of argument--------be naive enough to admit into evidence, as solid evidence wholly free of taint or suspicion, the fingerprints on rifle, box(es) & bag.

What we then have is evidence consistent with six scenarios:

a) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, acting alone) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
b) Mr. Oswald (the shooter, as part of a conspiracy) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence
c) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as the shooter
d) Mr. Oswald (innocent of any involvement) was framed by the conspirators as an accomplice
e) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) clumsily left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement
f) Mr. Oswald (not the shooter, but guilty of complicity) naively left behind incriminating evidence of his involvement which his double-crossing fellow-conspirators did not take care of, because they wished it to come to the investigators' attention.

We then must ask ourselves the question:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, would they or would they not take any pains to incriminate him?

To put this question in another form:
IF Mr. Oswald was being framed by those behind the assassination, how surprising would it be for evidence incriminating him to be found?
Would it not in fact be more surprising if no incriminating evidence were found?

So......... the thing is pretty much a wash. The very best the Warren Gullibles have is evidence consistent with six different scenarios, only one of which fits their own beloved theory.

And that, note, is the very furthest the Warren Gullibles can get on the most generous reading of the evidence provided by the 'investigating' authorities who were under tremendous pressure to pin the crime on him and on him alone. Not even that super-naive allowance enables the Warren Gullibles to put Mr. Oswald at that window at that time firing that rifle. Because all the 'evidence' he handled certain items at an indeterminable time may be taken to cut both ways: self-incrimination vs. frame-up.

 

In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.  So amusing.  Criminals often leave behind evidence of their involvement in a crime. THAT IS HOW MOST CRIMES ARE SOLVED!  LOL.  Evidence linking someone to a crime is not indicative of their being framed.  Unreal.  To demonstrate that the police framed someone for a crime involves more than just noting that there is a lot of evidence against the suspect.  HA HA HA.  It involves some evidence that the police actually fabricated the evidence.  But this nonsense does provide a great insight into the "mind" of a CTer and the mislogic used to exonerate Oswald.

[Alan Ford]

In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.

In which we receive further confirmation that reading comprehension is not Mr. Smith's forte! 

[Richard Smith]

In which we receive further confirmation that reading comprehension is not Mr. Smith's forte! 

So Oswald was not framed according to you? 

[Alan Ford]

So Oswald was not framed according to you?

[Richard Smith]

Not a trick question.  Is it your opinion that Oswald was framed or not? 

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.  So amusing.  Criminals often leave behind evidence of their involvement in a crime. THAT IS HOW MOST CRIMES ARE SOLVED!  LOL.  Evidence linking someone to a crime is not indicative of their being framed.  Unreal.  To demonstrate that the police framed someone for a crime involves more than just noting that there is a lot of evidence against the suspect.  HA HA HA.  It involves some evidence that the police actually fabricated the evidence.  But this nonsense does provide a great insight into the "mind" of a CTer and the mislogic used to exonerate Oswald.

Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;

Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?

and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....

[Jack Nessan]

No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 
Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.

Maybe this one helps clarify Strawman a little better for you. You seem to be struggling with it a little bit. It is probably because you are trying to use the concept to hide the fact you posted something that was completely wrong then denied it and are now embarrased by having done it.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.   

 

LHO leaving his fingerprints all over the place seems to be causing a lot of anguish. With your help we now know he constructed the SN. The fingerprints on the bag indicate he carried the bag exactly the way Linnie Mae Randal described. It is proven he purchased and possessed the rifle which was found on the 6th floor and matched to the bullet, fragments, and shells. Brennan saw a man firing the second and last shot from the SN. Nothing further is needed to understand who was the assassin.

[Richard Smith]

Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;

and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....

You still don't follow.  You alleged that finding Oswald's prints on these boxes was merely a function of his "working there" citing the possibility that other TSBD employees left their prints on the boxes to support this claim.  That is demonstrably false.  There were numerous TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  There was only one unidentified print.  It belonged to none of them.  Thus, your explanation that Oswald's prints were left on the box because he "worked there" is totally undermined.  No other employee who "worked there" left any such prints.  ONLY Oswald.  If you want to entertain that some fantasy assassin who DIDN"T WORK THERE left his prints on these boxes, then knock yourself out.  That is an entirely different claim.  But your explanation for Oswald's prints being on these boxes is completely destroyed by the evidence.  Just because one print is still unidentified after being compared to the TSBD employees who worked on the floor actually undermines your original premise.  It is "unidentified" because it did not belong to anyone who "worked there."  There is no doubt that some others must have touched the box at some point.  Someone packed its contents, and someone delivered it to the TSBD.  That, however, has no relevance for why only Oswald's prints are on the box among the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor on 11.22.