Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: When the SN was built  (Read 27732 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7416
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2023, 05:03:23 PM »
Advertisement
Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.  He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.  The rifle - LOL.   Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

Really? Show us the report that actually says no other (not) identifiable prints were found on those boxes.

The claim that only Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the S/N is not only not true but also highly suspect, because it justifies the question how those boxes got there in the first place. Are we to believe those boxes (we know were recently moved) were put there by people who did not leave a single print on them?

He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

You mean the bag that you can not prove is the same one he brought in that morning? That bag?

And as far as the rifle goes, the FBI found no prints on the rifle or any residue or trace of a print having been lifted.

Lt Day, claiming a week later, that he lifted print of the rifle is highly questionable because he did not mention it to anybody for days and lifting 100% of a print without leaving any residue is just about impossible. So, if you want to claim that Day's print was indeed on the rifle you will have to provide proof of that and you can't.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 08:21:03 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2023, 05:03:23 PM »


Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2023, 05:40:05 PM »
Is this Mr. Charles Givens (man close to camera, bottom-left, in red shirt & with large pencil [?] behind ear)?



Here, for cf, is Mr. Givens in the 1967 CBS special:



 Thumb1:

Offline James Hackerott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2023, 06:52:17 PM »
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:



And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...

This single frame image from Bronson’s film shows the sniper’s nest windows representing less than 0.4% of the entire normally projected frame. Stabilized animated GIFs of the film sequence show the object(s) on the window ledge more like an angry amoeba than boxes. Frame stabilization with subsequent stacking provided an image that shows a single, fairly well defined, box - well illuminated by the sun.

I questioned whether this box was the window box, or possibly the rest box directly behind the window box, from the photographers view. My recollection was the timing for this film sequence was close to 12:23. I modeled in 3D the scene for 12:23 with and without the window box present. When the window box is not present there is shadow from the window’s lower frame that clips the top-left corner of the rest box. Since the stacked image does not seem to show this shadow-clipped box I conclude the Bronson box is most likely the window box, present around 12:23.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2023, 06:52:17 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2023, 06:57:43 PM »
The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

Really? Show us the report that actually says no other (not) identifiable prints were found on those boxes.

The claim that only Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the S/N is highly suspect, because that would mean that no law enforcement officer touched any of the boxes (which by itself is highly unlikely) and it justifies the question how those boxes got there in the first place. Are we to believe those boxes (we know were recently moved) were put there by people who did not leave a single print on the boxes?

He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

You mean the bag that you can not prove is the same one he brought in that morning? That bag?

And as far as the rifle goes, the FBI found no prints on the rifle or any residue or trace of a print having been lifted.

Lt Day, claiming a week later, that he lifted print of the rifle is highly questionable because he did not mention it to anybody for days and lifting 100% of a print without leaving any residue is just about impossible. So, if you want to claim that Day's print was indeed on the rifle you will have to provide proof of that and you can't.

LOL.  Down the rabbit hole we go! WEEEEE.  I'll play along to pass the time but you have gone over this a thousand times or more rolling out your contrarian nonsense. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.  Elvis wasn't fingerprinted, though, for comparison.  So we still can't rule him out using your defense attorney "logic."    Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints?  Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?  If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?  HA HA HA.  How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?  Have you invented that time machine that you require in every instance relating to Oswald's guilt. 

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3667
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2023, 07:02:08 PM »
This single frame image from Bronson’s film shows the sniper’s nest windows representing less than 0.4% of the entire normally projected frame. Stabilized animated GIFs of the film sequence show the object(s) on the window ledge more like an angry amoeba than boxes. Frame stabilization with subsequent stacking provided an image that shows a single, fairly well defined, box - well illuminated by the sun.

I questioned whether this box was the window box, or possibly the rest box directly behind the window box, from the photographers view. My recollection was the timing for this film sequence was close to 12:23. I modeled in 3D the scene for 12:23 with and without the window box present. When the window box is not present there is shadow from the window’s lower frame that clips the top-left corner of the rest box. Since the stacked image does not seem to show this shadow-clipped box I conclude the Bronson box is most likely the window box, present around 12:23.




Great work, as usual, James! It is impressive how well stacking the frames helps define what we can see in the image. Thanks for posting this!

With a little luck, one day we might be able to see the “bald spot”….   ;)    ;D

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2023, 07:02:08 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7416
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2023, 07:48:37 PM »
LOL.  Down the rabbit hole we go! WEEEEE.  I'll play along to pass the time but you have gone over this a thousand times or more rolling out your contrarian nonsense. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.  Elvis wasn't fingerprinted, though, for comparison.  So we still can't rule him out using your defense attorney "logic."    Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints?  Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?  If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?  HA HA HA.  How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?  Have you invented that time machine that you require in every instance relating to Oswald's guilt.

WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.

As per usual you misrepresent the evidence. WC3131 states that the prints of those employees were compared with latent prints on (only) four boxes and that no identification was effected.
What this means, in the real world, is that there were in fact unidentified prints on those boxes which they could match to anybody. This can happen because the quality of the print simply wasn't good enough for comparison. What it doesn't do is rule out that the prints of others were on the boxes.

Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints? 

Day doesn't have to be "in on the conspiracy" to lie about finding the prints. We know for a fact he lied about other things, so why not about this? When Day found out, on Friday evening, that Frazier denied that the bag found in the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry in the morning, it was Day who desperately tried to concoct a bogus story to explain away the problem.

Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?

Are you for real? On Friday evening, the rifle goes to the FBI lab for examination. They find no prints on the weapon or even residue of a lifted print. Day learns this when the rifle is returned to him, the next day, and he doesn't mention such a crucial piece of evidence (as a previously lifted print) until all the evidence has to be handed over again to the FBI, two days after Oswald was killed. Was Day merely incompetent or did he really withhold crucial evidence for nearly a week?

If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?

Clarify the question....

How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?

That's easy. There is no contemporary report either by the FBI or DPD that confirms Day said anything to anybody, before the second shipment of evidence to the FBI. This can only mean one of two things; Day himself told nobody or he told somebody who in turn also kept his mouth shut. Either way, not really normal police procedure, right?

You really need to look at the bigger picture here; they have no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. They have boxes in the S/N with latent prints on them that can't be identified (and thus could belong to anybody) and they have Frazier's denial that the bag found at the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry. In other words, they have nothing even remotely solid, except for the rifle and the evidence card with Oswald's prints on them.

Yet, Day never figures that it might be a good idea if he just did his job and simply compared the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle with Oswald's actual prints.... Really?

« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 08:24:41 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2023, 08:40:08 PM »
Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

 BS: You don't know that.  There was one unidentified print.  And not all prints are liftable or identifiable at all. Especially after some time has passed.  Did anybody make any effort to see which employees filled orders from the sixth floor and when?

Quote
He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

"The bag".  LOL.  You mean the "bag" that you cannot prove was found on the "sniper's nest" floor, or that ever contained a rifle?  That bag?

"His prints on the rifle".  LOL. Wrong again, "Richard".  There were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

Name one.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 08:56:39 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2023, 08:40:08 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2023, 08:44:18 PM »
Exactly. The only way you can believe he is innocent is if you want to believe he is innocent.

John I actually makes an excellent point. If the box had been handled by LHO as part of his work, the fingerprints would have been all over the top where he opened it to access the books inside. If memory serves me right, instead there were just a couple of palm prints and a single fingerprint. The SN boxes are just one more example of his guilt.

I could just as easily claim that his fingerprints would have been all over the undersides of the boxes if he had moved them to fashion a "sniper's nest".