When the SN was built

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that Oswald left so much evidence behind that we can only conclude he was innocent.  So amusing.  Criminals often leave behind evidence of their involvement in a crime. THAT IS HOW MOST CRIMES ARE SOLVED!  LOL.  Evidence linking someone to a crime is not indicative of their being framed.  Unreal.  To demonstrate that the police framed someone for a crime involves more than just noting that there is a lot of evidence against the suspect.  HA HA HA.  It involves some evidence that the police actually fabricated the evidence.  But this nonsense does provide a great insight into the "mind" of a CTer and the mislogic used to exonerate Oswald.

Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;

Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?

and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....

[Jack Nessan]

No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 
Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.

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.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.   

 

LHO leaving his fingerprints all over the place seems to be causing a lot of anguish. With your help we now know he constructed the SN. The fingerprints on the bag indicate he carried the bag exactly the way Linnie Mae Randal described. It is proven he purchased and possessed the rifle which was found on the 6th floor and matched to the bullet, fragments, and shells. Brennan saw a man firing the second and last shot from the SN. Nothing further is needed to understand who was the assassin.

[Richard Smith]

Here we learn that, after having argued himself into a corner, Richard Smith finds himself unable (as so often) to answer a simple question, which was;

and decides to run away as fast as he can, pretending the question was never asked.....

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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! 

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.

[Alan Ford]

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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.     

[Martin Weidmann]

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.