Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.

Patrick C · 05-06-2017, 01:59 PM

(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

What I actually said was Oswald could have pushed boxes already stacked up with his thighs or forearms exactly as I had done when helping some one move house some time before I made that post.

The fact is...the lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald used boxes already stacked high and he moves a few boxes around including the three propped up right by the window. His prints were on some of those boxes....

Interestingly - even though at some point those boxes HAD to have been moved to get to the 6th floor and near that window which was away from the elevators.....no other employee prints were found on them........so perhaps it is that cardboard does lend itself too well to prints......one has to consider.

(05-06-2017, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

What I actually said was Oswald could have pushed boxes already stacked up with his thighs or forearms exactly as I had done when helping some one move house some time before I made that post.

The fact is...the lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald used boxes already stacked high and he moved a few boxes around including the three propped up right by the window. His prints were on some of those boxes....

Interestingly - even though at some point those boxes HAD to have been moved to get to the 6th floor and near that window which was away from the elevators.....no other employee prints were found on them........so perhaps it is that cardboard does lend itself too well to prints......one has to consider.

***Ben Holmes*** · 05-06-2017, 03:26 PM

(05-06-2017, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

What I actually said was Oswald could have pushed boxes already stacked up with his thighs or forearms exactly as I had done when helping some one move house some time before I made that post.

The fact is...the lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald used boxes already stacked high and he moves a few boxes around including the three propped up right by the window. His prints were on some of those boxes....

Interestingly - even though at some point those boxes HAD to have been moved to get to the 6th floor and near that window which was away from the elevators.....no other employee prints were found on them........so perhaps it is that cardboard does lend itself too well to prints......one has to consider.

All you've done, Patrick, is agree with what I stated.

What you CAN'T do is explain the other prints that were on the box in the sniper's nest.

For example, why is the Warren Commission completely silent on this evidence?

fobrien1 · 11-25-2017, 07:40 PM

(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

hi ben yes its very reasonable to state that his prints had every right to be there on any number of boxes really , simply because he worked not only in that building but also on that floor . and he worked on the upper floors that morning .

oswald it should be noted that only 3 prints were found on two boxes . on print on one and two on the other , if memory serves a finger print on one and a finger and palm on the other . this to me is not what i would expect of boxes handled and indeed moved into the so called snipers nest . one should surely expect prints from both hands on both boxes .

in addition to that the finger print expert testified that he coud not state a definite time that these prints were left , that in his opinion they could have been just hours old or indeed upwards of 3 days old .

(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.

" 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

someone familiiar with the cartons and the building ? wouldnt the floor laying staff who were laying plywood flooring be so familair ? .

(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? 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.

" Common sense is not common among conspracy believers " hollywood

is this the sort of comment we should expect from you in all aspects of this case ? . i mean i am quite familliar with the LN (lonenut ) mentality and i know that often when an LN is faced with some thing uncomfortable or something they cant refute that they then usually go down the route of attacking and labeling . so should we expect to see a lot CONSPIRACY NUT comments from you and KOOKS comments ? etc etc i mean as oppossed to actually adressing points raised and claims made ? , but then mr bugliosi was quite partial to such behavior himself . the point is what you may think about someone is unimportant , what you can prove is paramount . that is to say you can dislike me all you want , call me names all you wish but in doing so you wont be providing proof that is proving me wrong .

(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? 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.

"one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot" hollywood

howard brennan as ben pointed out did not pick oswald from a line up . only when oswald was dead did he say it was him .

brennan gave a height and weight description of the man he saw based on only seeing the man from the waist up .
brennan described the man as wearing khaki clothing that oswald was not wearing .
brennan stated that he attended a particular line up , no other witnesses ever saw mr brennan there .
a list exists of everyone who was at or participated in all the line ups , brennans name appears nowhere on this list .
brennan stated that he attended the line up with will fritz , but fritz denied this saying I DOUBT IT .

the warren commission declined to rely upon brennans later identification of oswald as the man in the window , stating only that HE SAW SOMEONE who he later believed was oswald .

(03-23-2017, 01:15 AM)Hollywood Wrote:
(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.

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

i havent seen ben say that oswalds prints were not on 2 boxes , they in fact were , so if your claim is that oswalds prints were on the boxes as bugliosi claimed then yes that remains unrefuted . but then ben hasnt tried to refute it , nor am i for that matter . if your claim is that because this is not refuted that it PROVES oswald left those prints at 12.30 well then i have to inform you that your logic is wrong . the prints as the finger print expert stated in testimony could have been hours old or as much as 3 days old . meaning oswald could have handled the boxes that morning , that afternoon or as early as wednesday . so the 3 prints on two boxes dont prove guilt , but nor do they exonerate .

(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.

and talking about / throwing in other evidence to try and get around the fact that the prints dont help you prove oswalds guilt is equallly an attempt to deflect attention .

the fact is the 3 prints neither prove guilt nor exonerate , if you wish to say that they could be seen by a jury as circumstantial that would be acceptable .

you mentioned a witness BREANNAN above , he stated that the man he saw wore khaki colored clothing . tell me did he mention seeing a dark brown shirt ? , the answer is NO . do you think that is a problem at all ?.

regarding the shirt fibers , the fbi fiber tests used back then have since been discredited . that aside the best that the fiber expert in testimony could offer was that the fibers he found and the fibers from oswalds shirt were consistent . NOT PROVEN TO HAVE COME FROM OSWALDS SHIRT just consistent with . lets add in the fact that the expert did not find one color fiber known to exist in oswalds shirt .

the same applies to the fibers you mention from the bag that you say "closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage" .

when the fbi processed the rifle they only found a few prints near the left side of the trigger guard . they said they were useless for identification purposes . NO PALM PRINT or any sign of one was ever found . which is very strange considering that day of the dallas police said that the palm print was in the stock area of the rifle HALF EXPOSED AND HALF COVERED . meaning it can only have been left there when the rifle was broken down . he said he lifted the exposed part but that he could still see the print was still there , so its mightly funny that he then gives the fbi the rifle , they thoroughly process it and no palm print was found . ive seen LNs argue that THE PRINT WAS ACCIDENTALLY ERASED BY THE FBI AGENTS ENROUTE TO THE FBI BUILDING . that is to say THE EXPOSED PART , ok lets say the fbi are that incompetent and they did accidentally erase that part of the print WHY THEN WASNT THE COVERED PART OF THE PRINT FOUND ?. after all the rifle had to be taken apart to access it and day didnt do that , so its beyond logic to assert that that part of the print should have been there abd found by the fbi . but it wasnt , they found nothing .

but lets for a minute say OK THE PRINT WAS INDEED THERE AND WAS INDEED OSWALDS . does that print prove that the rifle was in oswalds hands at 12,30 that tragic day ? . ABSOLUTELY NOT . day said the print he saw was old and dry making it weeks or months old . so at best all it would prove is that oswald handled the rifle when broken down at some point .

we do need to go back to the fibers but in another post .

fobrien1 · 11-25-2017, 09:20 PM

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

" 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. " hollywood

hollywood you cited only one witness in regards identification of oswald in the window , and as i pointed out its a highly unreliable witness , and that would be howard brennan . the shirt the commission said oswald wore was a dark brown shirt BRENNAN SAID THE MAN HE SAW WORE LIGHT KHAKI CLOTHING .

[font]Howard Brennan (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H470): “He was a white man in his early 30’s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definitely not a suit.” [/font]

[font]Robert Edwards (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H473): “I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect[/font] "

[font]Arnold Rowland (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 24H224): “This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck[/font] "

so where is the dark brown shirt that oswald was arressyed wearing ? .

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.

there is one other thing . oswald was recorded by multiple sources sayng HE CHANGED HIS SHIRT AND SLACKS while at his rooming house at 1pm pm or so .

[font]The 11-23-63 notes of Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who was leading the interrogation of Oswald, reflect that Oswald “Says 11-22-63 rode bus/got trans same out of pocket…Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes—long sleeve red sh + gray tr.” Fritz’s typed-up report on this interrogation states more clearly that “During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and changed both his shirt and trousers before going to the show” (24H267).

This account is confirmed by a report on this interrogation by Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley (CD87 p375). Kelley writes “He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a red shirt, and he put it in
his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.”

The FBI report on this interrogation confirms this as well, with Agent Bookhout relating that Oswald "stated that after arriving at his apartment he changed his shirt and trousers, because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers"[/font]

so here is my question , how can oswald have possibly left FRESH shirt fibers from the dark brown shirt on the carcano at 12.30 on elm street WHEN HE ONLY PUT ON THE DARK BROWN SHIRT ON AT HIS ROOMING HOUSE AT 1PM OR SHORTLY THERE AFTER ? . .

(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.

so it seems you are definately in conspiracy nut / kook land lol , you are now it seems determing what a response is EVEN BEFORE YOU GET IT based solely it seems on your bias towards anyone with a differing opinion to yours .

(03-29-2017, 02:12 PM)Hollywood Wrote: "If you want, I'll do EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM... but each in it's own post." Fire away - your attempted "refutations" of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence haven't been too impressive, so I'm not expecting much - sorry. Anything you offer will be the same tired suppositions, innuendo and quotes taken out of context - still boring. Get some REAL evidence, Sir.

" sorry. Anything you offer will be the same tired suppositions, innuendo and quotes taken out of context - still boring. Get some REAL evidence, Sir. " hollywood

so now based on your bias you are telling the readers here that you know what ben will post / claim here before he even posts / claims them , simply because you in your bias have decided that anyone with a different view of this case to yours must be wrong ?

one usually waits to see what a evidence a person provides and then IF THEY CAN they refute it / prove it wrong with contradictory proof .

(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Lieutenant Day: "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"

After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?

I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.

" the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached " hollywood

let me get this straight , you are in essence stating that not being able to prove something positively (in regards this case) doesnt preclude that oswald COULD HAVE DONE IT ?. so you cant prove that the prints on the two boxes were left in and around 12.30 that day , you cant prove the shirt fibers on the rifle came from oswalds brown shirt , and brennans ID is out the window because even the commission declined to rely upon on . and your saying ALL THAT DOESNT MATTER ? , your saying YES I CANT PROVE THESE THINGS but none of them preclude oswald from being the guilty party . no oswald is not precluded , however proof means proof IRREFUTABLE , so while oswald is not precluded by the above it also doesnt prove guilt .

(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.

And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.

Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.

Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.

If he said that, then he was lying.

The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...

Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.

The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.

(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote: And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.

Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.

Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.

If he said that, then he was lying.

The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...

Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.

The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."
From "The American Scholar" by Howard Willens and Richard Mosk - both WC staffers.

" to a creep like Oswald - sorry. " hollywood

and you talk about bias ? lol , what exactly do you think your bias towards oswald or me or anyone else proves in relation to this case ? . try dealing with facts and leave your beliefs and opinions at home .

"Rankin would often remind us that"truth is our only client.""

would this be the same rankin who said WE ARE HERE TO CLOSE DOORS , NOT OPEN THEM ?

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 09:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:
(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.

"evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant." Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.

How do you know that it wasn't "deemed to be credible evidence?"

Can you supply a citation to a section in the Warren Report where this was dealt with? Where witnesses were called to testify? Where an actual investigation was performed to determine the worth & credibility of the evidence?

Or did the Warren Commission immediately begin covering this up?

An honest person would look into the facts of the Jan. 22 meeting, and conclude that the Warren Commission had no intention of seeking the truth.

(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote: We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."

From "American Scholar" by Howard Willens & Richard Mosk, staffers for the WC (I posted this earlier and strangely it disappeared)

Interestingly, the post where you claim it "disappeared" was edited by you. It's still there.

You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.

Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...

Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...

Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)

You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.
Never made a statement regarding honesty and credibility - just a statement supporting my claim that they began the process LOOKING for a plot.

Don't know why they didn't have independent investigators - you don't either. Just suspicions and innuendo.

It wasn't a trial so, no cross examination of witnesses.

Don't know why Chaney wasn't called - you don't either - you ASSUME it was because of the nature of his testimony - don't assume.

Don't have to explain the actions of anybody - the WC made its case and published it - it's on you to shoot it down - hasn't happened in 54 years so I doubt you'll get anywhere either. I've been posting here for a week or two - you seem like a typical, garden variety theorist - no evidence, just quibbling and cherry picking - not impressive. You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too.

" You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too. " hollywood

once again ANY YOU TALK ABOUT BIAS ?. lol do you understand how silly you make yourself look with this sort of nonsense ? it seems not as you keep coming up with it .

fobrien1 · 11-26-2017, 03:33 PM

(05-06-2017, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

What I actually said was Oswald could have pushed boxes already stacked up with his thighs or forearms exactly as I had done when helping some one move house some time before I made that post.

The fact is...the lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald used boxes already stacked high and he moves a few boxes around including the three propped up right by the window. His prints were on some of those boxes....

Interestingly - even though at some point those boxes HAD to have been moved to get to the 6th floor and near that window which was away from the elevators.....no other employee prints were found on them........so perhaps it is that cardboard does lend itself too well to prints......one has to consider.

(05-06-2017, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (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...

What I actually said was Oswald could have pushed boxes already stacked up with his thighs or forearms exactly as I had done when helping some one move house some time before I made that post.

The fact is...the lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald used boxes already stacked high and he moved a few boxes around including the three propped up right by the window. His prints were on some of those boxes....

Interestingly - even though at some point those boxes HAD to have been moved to get to the 6th floor and near that window which was away from the elevators.....no other employee prints were found on them........so perhaps it is that cardboard does lend itself too well to prints......one has to consider.

hi patrick forgive me if im wrong but im thinking our paths crossed on some jfk youtube video commenst . may be that i am wrong , but i seem to remember an LN over there with the same name . its no biggee , just wondering if you are the same person .

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-26-2017, 07:59 PM

(11-26-2017, 03:33 PM)fobrien1 Wrote: hi patrick forgive me if im wrong but im thinking our paths crossed on some jfk youtube video commenst . may be that i am wrong , but i seem to remember an LN over there with the same name . its no biggee , just wondering if you are the same person .

Yes, it's the same Patrick Collins as you presume... unfortunately, he turned tail and ran, and no longer posts here.

This is a frequent problem with believers - they can't exist in open forums - they can only hide out in censored forums... there's simply too much evidence available for anyone to check up and read ...

The heyday for believers was before the ARRB released so much information... Now with the information easily available from the HSCA & ARRB - it's simply impossible for believers to debate critics in an open forum.

fobrien1 · 11-27-2017, 12:17 AM

thanks ben i thought i knew patrick , turns out i do . as i recall patrick nad myself exchanged a good few posts . as you know patrick frm youtube you probably know the sort of behavior that goes on there from our lone nut friends . ignoring of facts and proof , and widespread dismissal of evidence is pretty common place . its no the best forum for discussion but there is an awful lot of jfk material on youtube . ive had or attempted debate with many lone nutters on there including patrick but its usually a futile exercise because it decends into the usual farce , ad hominein and lies that you come to expect from many LN .

there is a guy on there with a video called CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LIE , his name is james k lambert . myself and another poster (who i am very familiar with ) exposed the serious problems with his logic , his video , and the comments he made on his video thread . in essence he ignored facts , irrefutable proof , dfismissed anyone and anything that he didnt care for , and when all that failed started with insults and falseley labeling us holocaust deniers , neither of us are and neither of us posted a single word about the holocaust . james deleted every post by the two us that proved him wrong , i saw this and posted my review of his video again (by the way he asks his viewers to send him money lol ) and he stopped comments . he later allowed comments again so i returned and questioned him about his deleting of facts proving him wrong , he lied and denied doing it , in fact he denied that he deleted any posts save for the odd one that was "abusive " . but he had posted previously threatening to delete my posts for no other reason than he was tired of my comments lol .

most recently ive been spending time on a video thread owned by david emerling , an intelligent and knowledgeable man (jfk wise ) but as with an LN he has no choice but to repeatedly post what he knows is inaccurate or untrue . as a prime example he repeatedly posts (in reply to newbies or people that he may sense are less well researched) that the pathologists studied jfks wounds for 4 hours and that as such there is no one better to tell us about his wounds . but i got him to admit that he doesnt believe the pathologists n regards jfks head entry wound position . he doesnt believe the people he says studied the wounds for 4 hours lol , instead he believes the clark panel (and later the hsca) who placed the entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up in the crown of the head despite the vehement protest of dr humes . every time he posts the above i post and remind him and inform the person that he is talking to that david in fact doesnt believe the very pathologists he so often says were the best people to tell us about the wounds .

talk soon