37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on
top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
(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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never
identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on
top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex
building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY "incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated
connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there
other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the
forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a
completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49 AM UTC-4, 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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction
the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his
right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY "incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was aThe Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:21:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 08:46:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper'sThe Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never
identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any
unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT
George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on >>>> top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex
building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction >>>> the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his >>>> right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY
"incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated
connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there
other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the
forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a
completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and
responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
Wrong, Gil. It proves he was at the window where several witnesses saw the gunman. The
orientation of the prints indicate he was facing down Elm St., just as the shooter would have
done. The proof it was Oswald who fired Oswald's rifle is his palm print on the barrel and the
fibers on the butt plate which matched his shirt. I suppose you think all of this is just an unlucky
coincidence for Oswald. I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available
evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attempt
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:21:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
(37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper'sThe Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never
identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any
unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT
George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on >>>> top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex
building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction >>>> the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his >>>> right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY
"incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated
connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there
other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the
forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a
completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and
responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
Wrong, Gil.
It proves he was at the window
where several witnesses saw the gunman.
The orientation of the prints
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available >evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter
but we both know you are never going to attempt
to do that
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49?AM UTC-4, 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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never
identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any
unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT
George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on
top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex
building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction >> > the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his >> > right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY
"incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated
connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there
other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the
forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a
completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and
responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
The Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attempt
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:46:46?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available
evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attempt
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
Once again, you haven't refuted anything I've said with documents or testimony.
Why should I construct a scenario for you ?
I don't make shit up like you do.
I deal in official documents and records, things you don't know about.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:46:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attemptOnce again, you haven't refuted anything I've said with documents or testimony.
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
Why should I construct a scenario for you ?
I don't make shit up like you do.
I deal in official documents and records, things you don't know about.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:07:26?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:46:46?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the availableOnce again, you haven't refuted anything I've said with documents or testimony.
evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attempt
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
I don't need to refute something you've never proven, only asserted.
Why should I construct a scenario for you ?
To demonstrate that it is possible for Oswald to be innocent given the state of the evidence.
We both know that isn't possible which is why you will never taken on such a challenge.
I don't make shit up like you do.
I deal in official documents and records, things you don't know about.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:07:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:46:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:I don't need to refute something you've never proven, only asserted.
I'd love to see you try to construct a scenario that fits the available evidence in which Oswald was not the shooter but we both know you are never going to attemptOnce again, you haven't refuted anything I've said with documents or testimony.
to do that because you know it is impossible so instead you resort to inventing lame excuses
for disregarding the available evidence. Excuses are all you have.
Why should I construct a scenario for you ?To demonstrate that it is possible for Oswald to be innocent given the state of the evidence.
We both know that isn't possible which is why you will never taken on such a challenge.
I don't make shit up like you do.<chuckle>
Oh, wait. You were being serious.
<chuckle>
I deal in official documents and records, things you don't know about.Whatever you say, Rossley.
More importantly, why did the WC hide the fact that there were prints
*NEVER IDENTIFIED* on the SN boxes?
This is simply a lie of omission.
And not a *SINGLE* believer can explain that fact.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:50:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
More importantly, why did the WC hide the fact that there were prints *NEVER IDENTIFIED* on the SN boxes?
This is simply a lie of omission.
And not a *SINGLE* believer can explain that fact.That's true.
There was one identifiable palm print that the FBI failed to identify, although they did try---- later.
Remarkably, by March 30, 1964 not one employee of the TSBD had been fingerprinted by the Dallas Police, the FBI or the Secret Service.
FOUR MONTHS after the assassination no one who worked in the building ( other than Oswald ) had been fingerprinted, even though they
had a palm print that they knew they couldn't identify back in November. ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 55, pg. 37 )
First, they searched their fingerprint records and found the fingerprints of 16 TSBD employees in their files.
But those files didn't include the palm prints. ( FBI file # 62-209060, Sec 7, pgs. 199-200 )
On June 16, 1964, the FBI took fingeprints and palm prints from 12 employees chosen by Roy Truly, who he
claimed would have had access to the sixth floor. ( CE 1980 / 24 H 7 )
One name that strikes me as being on the list is that of Frankie Kaiser, who was at Baylor Dental College with an abscessed tooth on the 22nd. ( 6 H 342 )
Another name that jumps out at me because it is NOT on the list is the name of Harold Norman who was on the sixth floor
"shooting the breeze" with the guys laying the new floor. ( 3 H 187-188 )
I have no idea why his name is not on Truly's list when he was on the sixth floor.
So they print Kaiser, who wasn't even at work that day and don't print Norman who testified he was on the sixth floor ?
At that time, Roy Truly, "requested that other employees not be fingerprinted," ( CE 1980 / 24 H 7 )
None of those 12 palmprints on Truly's list matched the mystery palmprint.
The FBI wanted to print everybody in the building but was met with stiff resistance from Truly and his boss, Ochus Campbell,
who told the FBI that they would not cooperate unless ordered to do so by subpoena. As a peace offering, Campbell and two employees,
Franklin Wester and Otis Williams, agreed to be printed. ( FBI file # 105-82555, Sec. 211, pg. 78 )
The FBI then left the question of the finger and palm printing of the remaining employees up to the Commission. ( 26 H 800 )
There's no evidence that the Commission used its subpoena power and ordered the remaining employees to be printed.
Since the "mystery palm print" was not Oswald's and would have added nothing to his guilt, the matter was dropped.
The palm print remains unidentified to this day.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49 AM UTC-4, 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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction
the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his
right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY "incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
The Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:25?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:45:49?AM UTC-4, 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 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...
And cowardice to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never
identified. Amusingly, the WC simply BURIED this information, and it
is sheer chance that someone wrote about it that we even know the
story today. If it had been left to the WC, no-one would know of any
unidentified prints being found in the sniper's nest.
But, as usual, it's time to post Bugliosi's full statement, so poor BT
George doesn't keep getting called a liar for summarizing what
Bugliosi argued:
37. Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on >>> > top of a book carton next to the windowsill of the southeasternmost
window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Yep. It would be unusual indeed if his prints were *NOT* found where
he worked. Now, if these same prints had been found at the Dal-Tex
building, then believers would *REALLY* have a case.
The carton appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.
Speculation that has nothing to do with Oswald.
Both prints were pointing in a southwesterly direction, the same direction
the presidential limousine was proceeding down Elm Street. A print of his >>> > right palm was found on top of the northwest corner of another carton
just to the rear of the gunrest carton.
This smacks of numerology... I daresay that given a fingerprint kit,
and free access to the TSBD on 11/22 - 11/23 - I could show MANY
"incriminating" fingerprint patterns, all with GREAT speculated
connections with the limo, limo direction, where it came from, etc.
It's sheer nonsense, and means nothing at all. It would take a truly
great orator to convince a jury that the directions of the prints
meant anything at all.
To summarize - Oswald's prints being found in the building, and indeed
on the floor that he worked is not evidence that he did anything there
other than work. The last time this was posted, David Von Pein - the
forum's leading expert on Vincent Bugliosi, simply went off on a
completely different tangent, didn't answer ANYTHING I had posted, and
responded with obscenity when this cowardice was pointed out.
Will he do the same this time?
Will *any* credible responses be made? Time will tell.
(We already know that John Corbett has decided that cowardice was a
better option than to try to refute these posts...)
The Neo-Nazi Nutters think Oswald's prints on the cartons was proof he fired a rifle.
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.
How wrong they are:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/
Gil's theory?
On 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:01:46?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:50:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
More importantly, why did the WC hide the fact that there were printsThat's true.
*NEVER IDENTIFIED* on the SN boxes?
This is simply a lie of omission.
And not a *SINGLE* believer can explain that fact.
There was one identifiable palm print that the FBI failed to identify, although they did try---- later.
Did that palm print belong to the owner of the rifle...
Remarkably, by March 30, 1964 not one employee of the TSBD had been fingerprinted by the Dallas Police, the FBI or the Secret Service.
Why would that be remarkable?
FOUR MONTHS after the assassination no one who worked in the building ( other than Oswald ) had been fingerprinted, even though they
None of them were suspected of having committed a crime. That's why people get fingerprinted.
had a palm print that they knew they couldn't identify back in November. ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 55, pg. 37 )
First, they searched their fingerprint records and found the fingerprints of 16 TSBD employees in their files.
But those files didn't include the palm prints. ( FBI file # 62-209060, Sec 7, pgs. 199-200 )
Palm prints are not routinely taken. The get taken when a palm print is discovered at a crime
scene and the cops want to find out who it belongs to.
On June 16, 1964, the FBI took fingeprints and palm prints from 12 employees chosen by Roy Truly, who he
claimed would have had access to the sixth floor. ( CE 1980 / 24 H 7 )
One name that strikes me as being on the list is that of Frankie Kaiser, who was at Baylor Dental College with an abscessed tooth on the 22nd. ( 6 H 342 )
Another name that jumps out at me because it is NOT on the list is the name of Harold Norman who was on the sixth floor
Norman was on the fifth floor when the shots were fired. He had an airtight alibi.
"shooting the breeze" with the guys laying the new floor. ( 3 H 187-188 )
I have no idea why his name is not on Truly's list when he was on the sixth floor.
Not when the shots were fired.
So they print Kaiser, who wasn't even at work that day and don't print Norman who testified he was on the sixth floor ?
At that time, Roy Truly, "requested that other employees not be fingerprinted," ( CE 1980 / 24 H 7 )
None of those 12 palmprints on Truly's list matched the mystery palmprint.
Go figure.
The FBI wanted to print everybody in the building but was met with stiff resistance from Truly and his boss, Ochus Campbell,
who told the FBI that they would not cooperate unless ordered to do so by subpoena. As a peace offering, Campbell and two employees,
Franklin Wester and Otis Williams, agreed to be printed. ( FBI file # 105-82555, Sec. 211, pg. 78 )
The FBI then left the question of the finger and palm printing of the remaining employees up to the Commission. ( 26 H 800 )
There's no evidence that the Commission used its subpoena power and ordered the remaining employees to be printed.
Since the "mystery palm print" was not Oswald's and would have added nothing to his guilt, the matter was dropped.
The palm print remains unidentified to this day.
Only one guy fired the rifle and he was killed two days later.
Another case of Gil assuming a conspiracy ...
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.
Gil's theory?
On 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.
Palm prints are not routinely taken. The get taken when a palm print is discovered at a crime
scene and the cops want to find out who it belongs to.
I have no idea why his name is not on Truly's list when he was on the sixth floor.Not when the shots were fired.
So they print Kaiser, who wasn't even at work that day and don't print Norman who testified he was on the sixth floor ?
The palm print remains unidentified to this day.
Only one guy fired the rifle and he was killed two days later.
Another case of Gil assuming a conspiracy where none exists because the investigators didn't do the things Gil would have done.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:21:07 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.
Gil's theory?
On 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.Charles Schuyler posts no evidence.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:12:03?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Palm prints are not routinely taken. The get taken when a palm print is discovered at a crime
scene and the cops want to find out who it belongs to.
Source ?
I have no idea why his name is not on Truly's list when he was on the sixth floor.Not when the shots were fired.
None of the twelve who were on the list and printed were on the sixth floor when the shots were fired so what's your point ?
So they print Kaiser, who wasn't even at work that day and don't print Norman who testified he was on the sixth floor ?
The palm print remains unidentified to this day.
Only one guy fired the rifle and he was killed two days later.
WTF has that got to do with identifying the mystery palm print ?
The unidentified palm print, BTW that wasn't his.
That's why it remains unidentified.
So whose was it ?
BTW, Oswald's two palm prints and one fingerprint were found on only two of the four boxes in the so-called, Sniper's Nest.
One of those boxes ( CE 641 ) contained two fingerprints that the FBI never identified. ( 4 H 38 )
They didn't fare any better with the other two boxes.
The FBI developed SEVEN identifiable prints on CE 653, but never were able to match them to anyone. ( 4 H 42 )
They developed THREE identifiable prints on CE 654, but couldn't match them to anyone, including Oswald. ( ibid. )
That's TWELVE identifiable prints on the three cartons that were not Oswald's and which the FBI never matched to anyone.
And you wonder why they wanted to print everyone in the building ?
To find out whose prints they were.
Another case of Gil assuming a conspiracy where none exists because the investigators didn't do the things Gil would have done.
I assume nothing. I post official documents.
What do you post ?
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
If anybody assumes anything, it's you.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:58:08?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:21:07?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.Charles Schuyler posts no evidence.
Gil's theory?
On 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.
Present one piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in the
crime. Just one, Gil. Can you do that?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:58:08 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:21:07 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.
Gil's theory?
Present one piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in theOn 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.Charles Schuyler posts no evidence.
crime. Just one, Gil. Can you do that?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:12:24?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:58:08?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:21:07?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Present one piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in the
Gil thinks the prints exonerates Oswald.Charles Schuyler posts no evidence.
Gil's theory?
On 11/22/63, some people did something. Prove him wrong.
crime. Just one, Gil. Can you do that?
Looks like Gil is having trouble coming up with even one such piece of evidence. Let's give him
a little more time. He's only had six decades.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:58:55 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |