[Nick Principe]

One "debunking" talking point I've heard from believers RE: the "unidentified" (Mac Wallace?) print is that the boxes/cardboard does a poor job of retaining useable prints. It seems once again LNers want it both ways.

---

(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.

Any critic will acknowledge some of Oswald's prints were found. Whereas *no* believer will acknowledge prints from an unidentified non-employee were found as well. How long you gonna keep working the denial angle?

[Hollywood]

"It would take me hours to refute ALL of the statements just made..."If it can be done with evidence, it might be worth the effort...

A tuft of several cotton fibers of dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow shades were found in the crevice of the butt plate of the rifle and the FBI laboratory found that the colors and even the twist of the fibers matched PERFECTLY with the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest, the same shirt the WC believed he was wearing when he was on the sixth floor in the sniper's nest. The FBI expert stated that the fibers had "just been picked up in the recent past. The tufts of fiber certainly are further substantive evidence that Oswald was at least in possession of the Carcano at some point.

---

(03-23-2017, 05:18 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  One "debunking" talking point I've heard from believers RE: the "unidentified" (Mac Wallace?) print is that the boxes/cardboard does a poor job of retaining useable prints. It seems once again LNers want it both ways.

---

(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.

Any critic will acknowledge some of Oswald's prints were found. Whereas *no* believer will acknowledge prints from an unidentified non-employee were found as well. How long you gonna keep working the denial angle?

Prints from an unidentified nonemployee cannot be considered in conjunction with the other several pieces of evidence that DO indicate Oswald's guilt. ONLY Oswald is connected to OTHER kinds of evidence in the window - that pesky thing called critical mass again...

[Nick Principe]

(03-23-2017, 07:08 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Prints from an unidentified nonemployee cannot be considered in conjunction with the other several pieces of evidence that DO indicate Oswald's guilt.

The only way they can't be considered is if the investigation was running under the mandate that Oswald was the lone assassin, and that he did not have any "confederates." So, Mr. Katzenbach, now that we've established you're assuming what you need to prove, do you wish to regurgitate the mistake of daring to bring up "critical mass", and how epically BAD it works against you when all the evidence and witness testimony really comes into play?

[Hollywood]

You are certainly welcome to attempt a refutation of the items comprising critical mass - I already raised it once. No mistake here, I assure you. Your response would no doubt be typical - hearsay, innuendo, quotes taken out of context to advance an agenda - it's boring.

[Nick Principe]

(03-23-2017, 08:24 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  You are certainly welcome to attempt a refutation of the items comprising critical mass - I already raised it once. No mistake here, I assure you. Your response would no doubt be typical - hearsay, innuendo, quotes taken out of context to advance an agenda - it's boring.

I could, but I don't need to, because the onus is not on me to absolve Oswald. The burden is on YOU to prove no one helped him. Barring that the majority of the evidence is a decendant of a questionalbe broken chain, none of it proves that there *wasn't* a massive cover-up in Dallas that day. 

You are certainly welcome to attempt a refutation of the items comprising critical mass - the undamaged CE399, the Katzenbach memo, the passel of medical evidence, the third thoratic vertebrae, the 40+ witnesses who ran to the GK fence and stated they smelled gunpowder, an exploding frangible bullet, Howard Brennan's description of a man who in no way resembles Oswald, and the behaviour of the WC. Your response would no doubt be typical - hearsay, innuendo, quotes taken out of context to advance an agenda - it's boring.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-23-2017, 07:08 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Prints from an unidentified nonemployee cannot be considered in conjunction with the other several pieces of evidence that DO indicate Oswald's guilt. ONLY Oswald is connected to OTHER kinds of evidence in the window - that pesky thing called critical mass again...

Yet you can't even name who left these prints! How do you know what evidence might be against him?!

For example, should it appear that the one who left the prints was James Alek Hidell - you'd instantly be in hot water...

But this tactic was favored by Bugliosi - no evidence by itself meant anything, but pile enough speculation on top of speculation, and you can manage to make Saint Teresa of Calcutta look criminal.

Hollywood - when are you going to deal with the rest of the refutations?

Surely you aren't going to defend Bugliosi on a single refutation, then leave???

[Nick Principe]

(03-23-2017, 11:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 07:08 PM)Hollywood Wrote:   

Hollywood - when are you going to deal with the rest of the refutations?

Surely you aren't going to defend Bugliosi on a single refutation, then leave???

Yet he did just that. Pitiful. Surprising, usually LNers are much better at clinging to their myopic faith in law and government. Here's an interesting bit of trivia: In poker terminology, "Hollywood" is a verb meaning to act deceptively by pretending to contemplate a move when you already know your intentions.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-27-2017, 08:35 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 11:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 07:08 PM)Hollywood Wrote:   

Hollywood - when are you going to deal with the rest of the refutations?

Surely you aren't going to defend Bugliosi on a single refutation, then leave???

Yet he did just that. Pitiful. Surprising, usually LNers are much better at clinging to their myopic faith in law and government. Here's an interesting bit of trivia: In poker terminology, "Hollywood" is a verb meaning to act deceptively by pretending to contemplate a move when you already know your intentions.

Interesting!

I don't play poker... I wonder if our anonymous believer does?

[Hollywood]

(03-23-2017, 04:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  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.

"This is an example of throwing everything except the kitchen sink into the mix."  And what comprises that "everything"? Just  a series of pieces of hard, credible evidence validating the conclusions of the WC - quibble with it all you like, twist it all around to fit a conspiracy narrative and there it still is in all its glory - forensic, hard evidence the likes of which conspracy "believers" have none of.

[Ben Holmes]

(03-28-2017, 03:44 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 04:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  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.

"This is an example of throwing everything except the kitchen sink into the mix."  And what comprises that "everything"? Just  a series of pieces of hard, credible evidence validating the conclusions of the WC - quibble with it all you like, twist it all around to fit a conspiracy narrative and there it still is in all its glory - forensic, hard evidence the likes of which conspracy "believers" have none of.

Pick one.

I'll be happy to demolish it.

But I won't waste my time when you try to throw in a ton of stuff all at once.

If you want, I'll do EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM... but each in it's own post.

My guess? You'll sneak away... and forget about it. You probably know by now that I know the evidence just as well as any believer, and can actually cite it.