[Ben Holmes]

(37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

They would be *EXPECTED* to be there... he worked there. What should *NOT* be there are prints from an *UNKNOWN* person who didn't work there - and were never identified. Far from being evidence against Oswald, the fingerprint evidence instead shows that leads weren't followed up by the DPD & FBI. And although Bugliosi had nothing to do with it – this particular topic – the relative paucity of fingerprints on these boxes, led one Warren Commission Believer (Patrick Collins) to hypothesize that Oswald was moving the boxes with his forearms.

Yes, you read that right! His forearms. It truly takes a Believer to come up with these explanations...

[Hollywood]

No depository employees other than Oswald left identifiable prints on the sniper's nest boxes even though none of them wore gloves. Roy Truly testified that the two, small, lightweight cartons marked "Rolling Readers" found at the sixth floor window were ordinarily stored "40 feet away or so". William Shelley, the Depository foreman, testified that the Rolling Readers cartons were normally stored "at least halfway across the building from the corner window.

When Shelley was asked if it would have been unusual for the two Rolling Readers cartons to be out of the stack and over by the window he replied that it would have been very unusual because they were different size cartons from any other boxes on that floor. They were smaller boxes. He stated that the fact that they were even over by the window suggests that they were moved by someone familiar with the different size cartons available on the sixth floor but also knew where to find them - in other words a Depository Employee. Maybe an employee whose prints were found in the sniper's nest. Interesting that Mr. Holmes left these pesky details out.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-21-2017, 08:13 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  No depository employees other than Oswald left identifiable prints on the sniper's nest boxes even though none of them wore gloves.

I quite doubt if moving boxes was considered a task that took all the employees in the building.

I rather expect that few, if any boxes, would have prints from multiple people.

But this one did... and considering the location - the presumed 'Sniper's Nest' - it's downright incredible that the unknown prints were not identified.

Now, I don't know this for a fact - but I've never yet seen any testimony from any warehouse employee stating that their fingerprints were taken by the DPD.

If this is true, that no-one's fingerprints were taken to compare with the unknown prints on the box, then this merely goes to show the frameup that was in process.
 

(03-21-2017, 08:13 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Roy Truly testified that the two, small, lightweight cartons marked "Rolling Readers" found at the sixth floor window were ordinarily stored "40 feet away or so". William Shelley, the Depository foreman, testified that the Rolling Readers cartons were normally stored "at least halfway across the building from the corner window.

When Shelley was asked if it would have been unusual for the two Rolling Readers cartons to be out of the stack and over by the window he replied that it would have been very unusual because they were different size cartons from any other boxes on that floor. They were smaller boxes. He stated that the fact that they were even over by the window suggests that they were moved by someone familiar with the different size cartons available on the sixth floor but also knew where to find them - in other words a Depository Employee.

This is beyond silly.

Does it really require an employee to see the sizes of the boxes?



I'm not an employee of the Texas School Book Depository, but I don't see the problem... my eyesight seems perfectly suited to finding boxes of an appropriate size.

Left as a presumption ... that the boxes were moved that day, and hadn't been there for several days...

 

(03-21-2017, 08:13 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Maybe an employee whose prints were found in the sniper's nest. Interesting that Mr. Holmes left these pesky details out.

Or perhaps by the person who left the unknown prints on the box.

It would not have been unusual for any of the warehouse employees prints to be on the boxes they handled daily in their job - but it is downright strange that a print that could not be identified was found there.

Nor did I "leave out" that detail - the post STARTS with the fact that Oswald's prints were found on the box.

Our new anonymous "Hollywood" somehow missed giving any explanation...

Would you like to try again, and show ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the DPD or FBI attempted to actually investigate the prints found on the box?

[Lee Abbott]

(03-21-2017, 08:13 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  No depository employees other than Oswald left identifiable prints on the sniper's nest boxes even though none of them wore gloves. Roy Truly testified that the two, small, lightweight cartons marked "Rolling Readers" found at the sixth floor window were ordinarily stored "40 feet away or so". William Shelley, the Depository foreman, testified that the Rolling Readers cartons were normally stored "at least halfway across the building from the corner window.

When Shelley was asked if it would have been unusual for the two Rolling Readers cartons to be out of the stack and over by the window he replied that it would have been very unusual because they were different size cartons from any other boxes on that floor. They were smaller boxes. He stated that the fact that they were even over by the window suggests that they were moved by someone familiar with the different size cartons available on the sixth floor but also knew where to find them - in other words a Depository Employee. Maybe an employee whose prints were found in the sniper's nest. Interesting that Mr. Holmes left these pesky details out.

[Hollywood]

Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window? The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest. Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot. This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting. Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window?

Why would Oswald?

This is merely a speculation game. I've already pointed out just how easy it is to spot the smaller boxes - so one doesn't have to be an employee to know where they are.

Nor can you show WHERE THOSE BOXES CAME FROM.

Who can say but that they were actually the closest to the Sniper's Nest when it was constructed?
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest.

Simply not true.

ANYONE could walk into the sixth floor, and determine for themselves what size boxes they wanted to move. It didn't require any specialized knowledge... merely eyes.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes...

You still refuse to acknowledge that employee prints HAD TO HAVE BEEN ON ALL THE BOXES.

It would have been strange NOT to find prints.

What WAS strange, and still unexplained by anyone, is the prints THAT COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO ANY TSBD EMPLOYEE. (or indeed, anyone with legitimate reason to be in the TSBD)

This supports the idea that the TSBD was merely used by strangers, who then simply walked down the stairs (as testified by one cop...)
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ...and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot.

Nope... not true. Howard Brennan REFUSED to identify Oswald as the shooter. Only months later, and subject to federal intimidation, did Brennan change his tune.

Indeed, this pervasive federal intimidation that went on has not only never been explained by any believers, but also NOT PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS FACT.

And that fact speaks volumes...

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another

Then by all means... prove it.

But, as is often the case when a believer is asked to support his naked assertion with citations to the evidence, it turns out to be nothing at all...
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting.

Tut tut tut... unless you can document this claim, I'll have to label this a lie.

There's not only a long list of employees that weren't in the TSBD that afternoon, by no stretch of the imagination can Oswald be said to have "fled."

You'll produce no citations that support that, I predict.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

More provably, honesty is not common among believers. And I CAN document that.

[Hollywood]

(03-23-2017, 01:07 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window?

Why would Oswald?

This is merely a speculation game. I've already pointed out just how easy it is to spot the smaller boxes - so one doesn't have to be an employee to know where they are.

Nor can you show WHERE THOSE BOXES CAME FROM.

Who can say but that they were actually the closest to the Sniper's Nest when it was constructed?
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest.

Simply not true.

ANYONE could walk into the sixth floor, and determine for themselves what size boxes they wanted to move. It didn't require any specialized knowledge... merely eyes.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes...

You still refuse to acknowledge that employee prints HAD TO HAVE BEEN ON ALL THE BOXES.

It would have been strange NOT to find prints.

What WAS strange, and still unexplained by anyone, is the prints THAT COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO ANY TSBD EMPLOYEE. (or indeed, anyone with legitimate reason to be in the TSBD)

This supports the idea that the TSBD was merely used by strangers, who then simply walked down the stairs (as testified by one cop...)
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ...and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot.

Nope... not true. Howard Brennan REFUSED to identify Oswald as the shooter. Only months later, and subject to federal intimidation, did Brennan change his tune.

Indeed, this pervasive federal intimidation that went on has not only never been explained by any believers, but also NOT PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS FACT.

And that fact speaks volumes...

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another

Then by all means... prove it.

But, as is often the case when a believer is asked to support his naked assertion with citations to the evidence, it turns out to be nothing at all...
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting.

Tut tut tut... unless you can document this claim, I'll have to label this a lie.

There's not only a long list of employees that weren't in the TSBD that afternoon, by no stretch of the imagination can Oswald be said to have "fled."

You'll produce no citations that support that, I predict.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

More provably, honesty is not common among believers. And I CAN document that.

---

Bugliosi's #37 still remains unrefuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-23-2017, 01:15 AM)Hollywood Wrote:  Bugliosi's #37 still remains unrefuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

I note for the record that you refused to document your claims as posted in your prior post...

But, let's get back to the facts...

Here it is again:

(37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

They would be *EXPECTED* to be there... he worked there. What should *NOT* be there are prints from an *UNKNOWN* person who didn't work there - and were never identified. Far from being evidence against Oswald, the fingerprint evidence instead shows that leads weren't followed up by the DPD & FBI. And although Bugliosi had nothing to do with it – this particular topic – the relative paucity of fingerprints on these boxes, led one Warren Commission Believer (Patrick Collins) to hypothesize that Oswald was moving the boxes with his forearms.

Yes, you read that right! His forearms. It truly takes a Believer to come up with these explanations...

[Hollywood]

At some point, critical mass is reached:  fingerprints on the boxes alone can be reasonably questioned - but when added to shirt fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon, his fingerprints on the weapon, the murder weapon itself being traced to Oswald himself, an eyewitness who watched him fire the third shot, the paper bag with fibers which closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage - it then becomes illogical to dismiss it all as planted or corrupted - we have reached critical mass. Bugliosi's #37 has STILL not been refuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the window - inserting comments about other employees handling those boxes just deflects attention from the fact that no refutation has been effectively offered.

[Ben Holmes]

I note again that Hollywood has refused to support his previous contentions that I pointed out.

(03-23-2017, 02:31 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  At some point, critical mass is reached:  fingerprints on the boxes alone can be reasonably questioned - but when added to shirt fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon, his fingerprints on the weapon, the murder weapon itself being traced to Oswald himself, an eyewitness who watched him fire the third shot, the paper bag with fibers which closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage - it then becomes illogical to dismiss it all as planted or corrupted - we have reached critical mass. Bugliosi's #37 has STILL not been refuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the window - inserting comments about other employees handling those boxes just deflects attention from the fact that no refutation has been effectively offered.

This is an example of throwing everything except the kitchen sink into the mix.

It would take me hours to refute ALL of the statements just made...

But I'll stick to the topic, and refuse the moving of the goalposts...

Oswald's fingerprints IN HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT isn't proof of anything. PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HAVE UNEXPLAINED FINGERPRINTS ON THE SAME BOX!!!

It would be a stupid jury indeed to find that this is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Indeed, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE the reasonableness of my refutation.

So there are 52 others... this is only a single refutation... feel free to refute the rest IN THEIR APPROPRIATE THREADS... and I'll hasten to get the rest of the Bugliosi refutation posts posted here.