Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[Thomas Graves]

In "the Sniper's Nest"... LOL! There is no evidence supporting that there was a Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, therefore, the rest of your post is nothing but hypothetical.

Caprio,

Had there really been a sniper's nest at that window at 12:30, what kind of evidence of it would you reasonably expect to exist?

A well-exposed 35mm color film taken from that part of the sixth floor at the time, accompanied by notarized statements from the photographer and his or her helpers?

Or ... gasp ... boxes arranged in that configuration with ... gasp ... the sniper's fingerprints on them?

-- MWT 

[Bill Chapman]

The prints are worthless. The FBI expert admitted without examining LHO's hands, and he never did, he was simply taking what were CLAIMED to be LHO's prints and going from there.

Name the expert and provide a link to that.

[Richard Smith]

Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.

Poor Oswald was certainly an unlucky guy.  Time and again the evidence points back to him due random bad luck.  Let's see he is the only TSBD employee to leave prints on the boxes.  Others worked there but Oswald's are the only employee prints they find.  What are the odds?  And his prints are on the bag and rifle.  More bad luck.  And he has no credible alibi like almost every other person who worked there.  And he flees the scene.  Gets a pistol.  Happens to cross paths with the murder of a police officer less than an hour later (the only DPD officer killed within a several year period).  He has the same two brands of ammo as Tippit's killer.  He apparently looked just like the real killer.  So much bad luck.

[Gary Craig]

If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers.  They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant").  Some genius would ask if everyone who carried a long bag to work was a presidential assassin (as though there were no context to this bag).  How do we know this?  Because Oswald's rifle was found and photographed and they still go down that rabbit hole clinging to any straw.  No photo was taken.  Great - let's argue despite the assurance of multiple detectives that it wasn't there.  If a photo had been taken, then it's on to plan B without missing a beat and suggest it was planted, Oswald's prints just happened to be on it because he worked there etc.  A photo has no value when taken.  Only when not taken.  Round and round down the rabbit hole.

"If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers.  They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant")."

True. Since the bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano and the 2 people who saw LHO carrying something that morning both describe a bag 27 inches long - too short to have carried the TSBD Carcano - the logical conclusion would be planted evidence.

[Richard Smith]

"If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers.  They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant")."

True. Since the bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano and the 2 people who saw LHO carrying something that morning both describe a bag 27 inches long - too short to have carried the TSBD Carcano - the logical conclusion would be planted evidence.

Great.  Then you have proved my point.  And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.  And on and on and on down the yellow brick road.  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.  So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt.  Catch 22 of CTer logic.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Great.  Then you have proved my point.  And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.  And on and on and on down the yellow brick road.  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.  So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt.  Catch 22 of CTer logic.

The more evidence of Oswald's guilt is, for the conspiracy advocates, more evidence of his innocence. Why? Because it's faked and, thus, evidence of a conspiracy.

When Garrison said that you have to think that "Up is down and down is up" he was revealing how conspiracists look at this event. A thousand pieces of evidence that Oswald shot JFK is, for them, a thousand pieces of evidence that he didn't.

[Jerry Freeman]

In the sniper's nest ....yadda yadda

What blog did that come off of? Why not say "Oswald's sniper nest"? As the words "Oswald's rifle" was stated umpty billions of times and so that made it a fact.
 There was an entire wall of boxes in this picture.... Were fingerprints obtained from all of them? [Would prove the nest builder's presence most accurately]