[fobrien1]

(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 .