Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Jack Trojan]

Was the scope removed from the barrel?

In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope. In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough.

Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated. That Ventura's test proved it.

It doesn't matter if the scope was attached to the barrel because it was never aligned in the 1st place let alone sighted in. The FBI needed 3 shims under the mount to even hit the target. And, as usual, you missed my point. Give Oswald some cred, he knew the scope could not be relied on. So why leave it on the rifle if you know you are going to use the iron sights instead? Ironically, you keep making the case that Oswald acted more like a patsy than a dumb LN assassin.

[Gary Craig]

Was the scope removed from the barrel?

In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope. In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough.

Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated. That Ventura's test proved it.

"In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope."

Slightly-off?  The Army Sharp shooting Team the WC employed to test the TSBD Carcano was unable to zero in the scope.

"In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough."

The iron sights were fixed at 200 meters.

When that same Army Team tried to replicate a head shot, from the approximate height and distance the WC claimed, the bullet sailed over top of not only the silhouette but the board it was attached to.

"Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated."

Again, the same Army team found working the sticky bolt caused shooters to take the sights off the target.

[John Iacoletti]

If you lived in Kansas during the 1870's it would have been DODGE City: Possibly in CONTRARIAN Street.

a.) His means "his".

Break this down for me. If your prints are found on something, that means you own it?

b.) Oswald's prints were on the long paper bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

And what does this tell you about who killed Kennedy?

The bag matched the general description of the one Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry into the rear entrance to the TSBD.

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

The palm-print's position on the paper bag corresponds to the way Oswald carried it--according to Buell Frazier.

Really? The palm print was near the middle of the bag and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag. And the palmprint is oriented such that the bag would have been held with the open end down. How does this comport at all with what Frazier saw (carried vertically between armpit and closed end in the palm of the right hand)?

[Ross Lidell]

Now, who is avoiding evidence?

Touching a bag and thus leaving a print doesn't make that bag yours! If everything I touch and left a print on would be mine, I would be a rich man in no time! And why do you ignore that fact that the bag was made of TSBD materials and was found at the TSBD, allegedly on the 6th floor, where Oswald worked. He could have simply moved the bag and left his print on it, if that is indeed what happened.

Besides there also were other prints on the bag which were never identified, which leave wide open the possibility of others having held/touched the bag as well

Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag on Friday evening by the DPD and he denied it was the one he had seen Oswald carry. And, actually, the bag did not "match" Frazier's description at all. He said Oswald carried a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store.

Physical evidence trumps "opinion".

That Oswald's prints are on the bag is indisputable.

Therefore:

-- How did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

-- When did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

-- Where did Oswald put his prints on the bag?

[Walt Cakebread]

"In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope."

Slightly-off?  The Army Sharp shooting Team the WC employed to test the TSBD Carcano was unable to zero in the scope.

"In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough."

The iron sights were fixed at 200 meters.

When that same Army Team tried to replicate a head shot, from the approximate height and distance the WC claimed, the bullet sailed over top of not only the silhouette but the board it was attached to.

"Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated."

Again, the same Army team found working the sticky bolt caused shooters to take the sights off the target.

"In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope."

Only a complete ignoramus would make such a stupid statement!!

[Ross Lidell]

Break this down for me. If your prints are found on something, that means you own it?

And what does this tell you about who killed Kennedy?

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

Really? The palm print was near the middle of the bag and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag. And the palmprint is oriented such that the bag would have been held with the open end down. How does this comport at all with what Frazier saw (carried vertically between armpit and closed end in the palm of the right hand)?

Provide proof of those assertions.

[Martin Weidmann]

Physical evidence trumps "opinion".

That Oswald's prints are on the bag is indisputable.

Therefore:

-- How did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

-- When did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

-- Where did Oswald put his prints on the bag?

Physical evidence trumps "opinion".

So true. And what you've got is an opinion.

What exactly is a bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD in a location where Oswald worked,  physical evidence of, to you?

-- How did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

A possibility?... He picked it up to move it from a box of books he needed....

-- When did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?

Who knows?... He could have picked up the bag on Thursday or even on Friday morning.... There is no way to know for sure.

-- Where did Oswald put his prints on the bag?

John already told you. I'm not really sure why you would ask him for proof, since that suggests that you have not considered all the evidence when forming an opinion.

Anyway, a far better question is; Oswald is supposed to have made the bag at the shipping department of the TSBD, folded it to take it to Irving (without Frazier seeing it), opening it up again and put a rifle inside, carry it gripped at the top and letting it hang next to his leg (Randle's observation) and carry it with the bottom in the cup of his hand. With so much handling, why were there only two parcial prints of Oswald found on the bag?

And some more questions for you;

There were more prints found on the bag, which could not be identified. Could this mean that others have also touched the bag?

When the bag on the 6th floor was found it was allegedly folded up. But it was carried out of the TSBD unfolded and a photo shows the unfolded bag on top of some boxes in the sniper's nest. Who unfolded the bag and put it there, and why have that person's prints not been found on the bag?

Frazier told the DPD officers on Friday evening that the bag they were showing them wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry, so why do you think it was the same bag after all?