Why are the CT's so obsessed with disproving the innocent Bus and Cab rides?

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Why are the CT's so obsessed with disproving the innocent Bus and Cab rides?  (Read 194197 times)

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
Nice try. Silly as hell but nice try. Go here and lets stay on topic if we can----
Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest......
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2425.msg117692.html#msg117692

If it's "silly" why don't you rebut it instead of deflecting?  I was responding to your post where the topic was raised.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
If even one print is found on the bag, it links the bag to Oswald.

But it doesn't link the bag to the crime, nor does one print mean anything more than Oswald touched the paper at some point in time

Many criminals are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.

Wow, hold on there for a second. Many people are in jail because they left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene, but that doesn't mean they are all criminals. People get wrongfully convicted all the time.

And if you are a conspiracy theorist, why not ask yourself the same question about why your conspirators didn't just say they found Oswald's prints all over the bag and rifle?

Because an all encompassing entity, you call the "conspirators", which has the liberty to operate in some sort of vacuum, doesn't exist. Those kind of people only exist in movies. In your fantasy conspiracy world everybody is in on it, which is exactly the kind of exaggeration we are so used to coming from you.

So why not go all out?

Because the best lie is the one that stays as close to the truth as possible..... Could that be it?

Step one is to link the bag to Oswald.  One print does that.  The person that I was responding to was asking why there were not multiple prints on the bag.  The answer is that it doesn't matter.  One print does it.  We have no idea if Oswald wore gloves while making the bag and even if he didn't not every touching of the bag would have left a print to be recovered using 1963 technology.  Whatever conspiracy fantasies are entertained about this bag, there is no doubt that it is connected to him. 

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
So you think they constructed this bag but then held the actual evidence (i.e. a wooden strip) with their bare hands?  Why would they do that?

The wooden strip was of evidentiary interest because the assassin might have touched it somewhere between its two ends. For a detective to hold it at one of the ends would thus not be a problem

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Step one is to link the bag to Oswald.  One print does that.

Right-----------step one for DPD is to link the bag to Mr Oswald. All that's needed is a print or two from Mr Oswald. Not too difficult to contrive a way when you have the man in interrogation. Multiple prints would of course be ideal, because way more realistic, but............... not so easy to make happen! Thumb1:

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
The photo that I saw Showed a curved handle like a cane or an umbrella in detective Montgomery's hand.  When I saw that photo my first thought was there was a cane supporting the gigantic paper sack, and I didn't know that Montgomery used a cane.     That photo was published in a magazine or book .....And I can't remember where I saw that photo....

I would very much like to see that photo!

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
I didn't say that it was OBVIOUS that Lee ordered  "A" Carcano fom Klein's.....I simply have no problem in accepting that Lee Ordered a Carcano from Klein's ...It was a cheap easy to trace old gun that He and De M. intended to use as a throw down gun at the Walker hoax>    ( A carcano was also used as a throw down gun in the TSBD)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62240#relPageId=33

This story beginning with this page------
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62240#relPageId=25
This guy...Albert Newman was engaged in writing his own book about the assassination based on nothing but innuendo.
Jim Garrison started off that way.
According to Newman...De Mohrenschildt drove Oswald and rifle to the Walker home ::)
Quote
Mr. JENNER. This was a weapon? Did you go in and look?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't look at the gun. I was still standing. The closet was open. Jeanne was looking at it, at the gun, and I think she asked Marina "what is that" you see. That was the sight on the gun. "What is that? That looks like a telescopic sight." And Marina said "That crazy idiot is target shooting all the time." So frankly I thought it was ridiculous to shoot target shooting in Dallas, you see, right in town. I asked him "Why do you do that?"[yeah :-\]
Mr. JENNER. What did he say?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. He said "I go out and do target shooting. I like target shooting." So out of the pure, really jokingly I told him "Are you then the guy who took a pot shot at General Walker?" And he smiled to that, because just a few days before there was an attempt at General Walker's life, and it was very highly publicized in the papers, and I knew that Oswald disliked General Walker, you see. So I took a chance and I asked him this question, you see, and I can clearly see his face, you know.
He sort of shriveled, you see, when I asked this question.
Mr. JENNER. He became tense?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Became tense, you see, and didn't answer anything, smiled, you know, made a sarcastic--not sarcastic, made a peculiar face.
Mr. JENNER. The expression on his face?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That is right, changed the expression on his face.
That testimony was absolute perjury.
Again...Oswald was dead--who cared anyway?

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
The wooden strip was of evidentiary interest because the assassin might have touched it somewhere between its two ends. For a detective to hold it at one of the ends would thus not be a problem

Wow.  So they make this enormous bag in this fantasy to protect the wooden strip because it might have the assassin's prints on it. But instead of putting the wooden strip in the bag and closing it up to protect the evidence, they decide to hold the wooden strip in the bag and carry it that way?  And they do this because they somehow know that holding "it at one of the ends would thus not be a problem"! That is far out reasoning even from you.  You can't possibly believe that one.  Comedy gold.