[Ben Holmes]

(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,"

The fact that you've answered only one of them belies that claim.

(03-29-2017, 02:12 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... 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.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

Since you've refused... we'll start with your "his fingerprints on the weapon" claim.

According to the FBI, this simply isn't true.

There aren't *ANY* fingerprints that have been shown to have been Oswald's... there is, however, a palmprint. One that the FBI could not see on the rifle, so has no independent corroboration... what we have is a single source, Lt. Day...

And since Lt. Day violated normal procedure by not photographing the print in place before "lifting" it, there's quite reasonable doubt that the palmprint ever existed on the rifle.

Lt. Day's refusal to sign an affidavit on the issue when both the FBI & Warren Commission were trying to get to the bottom of this issue is very telling...

So what you have is speculation... you absolutely must rely on the honesty & character of Lt. Day.