It's a video well worth viewing.
Link?
Oswald's fingerprints were found on boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including the sniper's nest. That proves he shot the president, and did it all by himself. Never mind that he worked there, and it was his job to move those boxes. Just never mind, boys and girls because the evidence gets a lot better.
No. It proves Oswald was in the location of the snipers nest, and his fingerprints were in tact. It does not, and is not intended to prove anything more.
But perhaps you should consider the following:
1) How long fingerprints last on paper or cardboard. This gives us a time frame for when the fingerprints were left.
2) The state fo the fingerprints and their location on the boxes and the snipers nest. Yes, Oswald was the only person who was meant to be there, but if somebody else handled the boxes, or touched other surfaces on the snipers nest they would either leave prints of their own or degrade Oswalds prints. Why do you think detective shows always feature people wiping away prints or telling somebody not to touch anything?
3) It means the
only person we can tie to the location not only moved the boxes he was paid to, but apparently helped the sniper make his nest.
Oswald's Palm Print was found on the rifle. Now boys and girls, I know that some critics say there was no palm print found, and indeed the FBI found no palm print from the evidence released form the DPD on Nov. 22nd,
How would they be able to find a print that had already been lifted Robert?
but some time later Lt. Day did send them a photo of a palm print he said he found on the rifle, but not sent till Nov. 29th. Why later?
Perhaps for a mundane reason like the time it takes cogs to move in a high profile investigation?
Perhaps because it was ony after the FBI paid a visit to the Oswald funeral parlor with the rifle and placed his palm on it.
And what would this achieve from a dead body no longer producing sweat?
We know how long after death a body can produce latent prints.
We know when Oswalds body reached the funeral home.
What use would the FBI have in a visit that would not produce a print?
("Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.'
The difference between transfering ink to fingertips to card for identification, and the production of s latent print has been explained at length. The FBI have several reasons to take their own set of prints for comparisson. But, just to hammer the point home:
1) An ink pad is not a rifle.
2) The print record card is not a rifle.
3) An ink palm print to compare to the rifle was needed.
4) There is no evidence of ink on the rifle at any time. A letent print has been recovered in a powder medium.
In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."
-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
Ok so if we take story as true (which have no obligation to do) we have the following observations:
1) It is entirely possible that Harrison misunderstood. A print was required for comparrison. That did not require the rifle to be put in Oswalds hand to fake a print. It could mean that a simaler rifle was used to get the right shape of print (ever notice the creases in your hand when you grip something) by placing paper on the rifle and making an ink print. It is even more likely the rifle was not there at all and Harrison misunderstood a brief. These things happen.
2) It doesn't matter how many times prints from fingertips were taken at the police station, if the best print was from a palm, then they would need to get a palm print. Where is the only place they could do that boys and girls? Yep. From Oswald. So guess where they would have to go get a palm print to compare it to? (And yes, how would you compare a palm print and know it was Oswalds without a palm print to comapre to)? Why... Oswald!
Ballistics. Yes indeed, boys and girls, solid ballistic evidence that all of the bullets fired at the President came from the same Carcarno Rifle -- Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. This comes from something very technical that measures metalic impurities in a lead content bullet with a nuclear reactor called Neutron Activation Analysis -- bombarding two fragments with neutrons and their radioactive characteristics compared.
Are you sure that was the only test made?
Now I know that none of you boys and girls probably have a nuclear reactor in your basement so that you can't really test these results yourself, so you have to just trust a certified Expert on the subject, and leave it at that.
Or we could look at the original findings.
The fragments were examined twice by neutron activation analyses, first by the FBI in 1964 (results inconclusive) and then by Vincent Guinn, a professor of chemistry at the University of California at Irvine in 1977.
So what other ballistic testing was carried out? Are you absolutely sure nobody used any other study of the bullets for rifling marks, or more traditional ballistic analysis? Odd you aren't mentioning them.
Guinn made measurements of the lead and antimony content of bullet C399 and another fragment.which were "indistinguishable," which in the language of the proponents means they were "identical."
Please supply the quote and attribute it to a specific proponent for accuracy.
Thus, all of the bullets and fragments came from the same batch of bullets proving that Oswald did it and did it alone.
Correction: Implying that all bullets were of the same batch, and most likely fired from the same source. Especially in conjunction with the rest of the ballistics evidence you aren't discussing.
David Lifton asked Guinn as to the legitimacy of the fragments and if he could have been fooled. Guinn said, "Posssibly. They could take a bullet, take out a few pieces and put it in the containers and say," This came out of Connally's wrist, and naturally, if you compare that with bullet 399, they'll look alike... I have no control over those things. I have to believe these are honest people."
Yes. A lot of things could be faked. A few doctors could say they saw a bullet hole in JFKs head corresponding to a shooter from the front, or the grassy knoll, or Mars. But we have no evidence that happened. We have no evidence any other objective evidence was tampered with. We have no evidence that the bullets fragments were wrongly identified to fake a result.
But the "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics.
The evidence for an second shooter is nonexistant.
Former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James concluded that re-analysis involved new statistical calculations and a modern chemical analysis of bullets from the same batch Oswald purported to have used. They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved,
Oh good, so you still have no evidence for a second assassin, you just want to claim it has not been ruled out. Then the sceptical stance of "Oswald is the only shooter who we have evidence for and we have no reason to suspect more than one shooter until you produce evidence" is unchanged.
but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination in Dallas.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets,"
Yes. We know Oswald fired three bullets. The fragments could have come from more than his two hits, but we have no reason to suspect they did, and a very good reason (such as the Z film) to suspect they did not.
the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely."
And if they were not?
And if they were but Oswald fired more than three shots?
And if Ifs and Buts were Candy and Nuts?
Thus, just like every criminal trial involving "experts" it's always the prosecution's "experts" versus the defendant's "experts" and the non-expert juror can either flip a coin, or just try using some common sense.
Like say, the one guy we know who was in the location, with the right weapon, firing the right kind of bullets, that matches the trajectory of the wounds we can see in photographs and film, and the wounds the majority of the 40 "medical" witnesses describe despite Roberts attempt to claim otherwise, then he is the most likely suspect?
Or the other kind of common sense where you try to redefine "medical", claim that films and photos were faked with out offering any viable way of doing so, that relies on faking fingerprints in a way that can not work, that changes its mind if the additional shooter was to the front or the right?
Or how about instead of relying on experts we look at the source data for ourselves and make up our own mind? Is that the wring kind of common sense?
But I really think it's important for all assassination buffs to view this ABC video which reveals just how the hoodwinking of America was still being carried out even 50 years after the event.
Yes. By people who claim that latent prints can be obtained from dead bodies too long after the fact, and huxtors holding rulers and protractors up against photographs. Who will get a guy in a mask to hold a stick in a completely different pose and claim it is "exact enough" by no meaningful standard.
And just how was that magic 3000 number derived? My guess
Is a guess and worthless.
is, ABC taking a que from American Intelligence simply pulled it right out of the air.
Anybody got an irony meter?
