Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: When the SN was built  (Read 41347 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2023, 03:34:52 PM »
Advertisement
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.

So many words, and not an answer to my question in sight.

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 is nothing false about it.

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.

BS. Even if no other TSBD employee touched those boxes, it still remains factual that Oswald worked in the building and that his job was to take books from boxes as well as moving boxes around.

There is no doubt that some others must have touched the box at some point.

At last he sees the light!  Thumb1:

Someone packed its contents, and someone delivered it to the TSBD.

Prints on cardboard boxes don't last very long. Is it your claim now that somebody delivered those boxes to the TSBD within roughly a day before the crime?

If so, that would also explain how Oswald's prints got on those boxes, as some TSBD employee must have brought those boxes to the 6th floor. That somebody could have been Oswald, right?

Which brings us back to the basic fact that fingerprints found on boxes from an employee whose job it was to move and open those boxes have no evidentiary value at all.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2023, 10:16:42 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2023, 03:34:52 PM »


Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #145 on: February 06, 2023, 04:44:02 PM »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #146 on: February 06, 2023, 11:05:28 PM »


Prints on cardboard boxes don't last very long. Is it your claim now that somebody delivered those boxes to the TSBD within roughly a day before the crime?

If so, that would also explain how Oswald's prints got on those boxes, as some TSBD employee must have brought those boxes to the 6th floor. That somebody could have been Oswald, right?

Which brings us back to the basic fact that fingerprints found on boxes from an employee whose job it was to move and open those boxes have no evidentiary value at all.

You got one thing correct.  Oswald touched the boxes very shortly before the DPD discovered them on 11.22!  HA HA HA.  Good catch.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #146 on: February 06, 2023, 11:05:28 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #147 on: February 06, 2023, 11:42:17 PM »
Yet, If no prints of LHO had been found in the sniper’s nest these clowns would claim the evidentiary value was of extreme importance.  ::)   :D

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #148 on: February 06, 2023, 11:45:02 PM »
You got one thing correct.  Oswald touched the boxes very shortly before the DPD discovered them on 11.22!  HA HA HA.  Good catch.

Which means absolutely jack squat, as we know at least one other unidentified person must have touched those boxes as well.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #148 on: February 06, 2023, 11:45:02 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #149 on: February 06, 2023, 11:59:19 PM »
Yet, If no prints of LHO had been found in the sniper’s nest these clowns would claim the evidentiary value was of extreme importance.  ::)   :D

Why would a reasonable person do that? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is no evidentiary value either way, but it is extremely telling that LNs need this kind of desparate argument to even begin to make a case.


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10831
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #150 on: February 07, 2023, 01:14:10 AM »
In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent. 

Says the guy who still has yet to demonstrate that Oswald left any evidence behind.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10831
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #151 on: February 07, 2023, 01:25:24 AM »
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.

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you. You claimed that I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything like that. You made it up. It’s a strawman. Now what was the thing I posted that was “completely wrong”? And answer that without making up another strawman. Use a direct quote.

Quote
LHO leaving his fingerprints all over the place seems to be causing a lot of anguish.

The only one who seems to be in anguish is you, trying to do backflips to turn this into evidence of murder.

Quote
With your help we now know he constructed the SN.

We know nothing of the kind.

Quote
The fingerprints on the bag indicate he carried the bag exactly the way Linnie Mae Randal described.

 BS:, how? And even if this is true, this is evidence of …. what? What about the way Frazier said he carried his package? And the fact that they described a different package than the magic, invisible CE142?

Quote
It is proven he purchased and possessed the rifle which was found on the 6th floor and matched to the bullet, fragments, and shells.

 BS: “Proven” how?

Quote
Brennan saw a man firing the second and last shot from the SN.

Also  BS:. Brennan didn’t even say that.

Quote
Nothing further is needed to understand who was the assassin.

Maybe not for somebody who bases his “understandings” on claims that are false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2023, 01:35:13 AM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #151 on: February 07, 2023, 01:25:24 AM »