ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE WINGNUTS
Gil Jesus
fingerprints were left on it and not whole prints ?
justm...@gmail.com
> In what fashion would one handle a rifle so that only partial
> fingerprints were left on it and not whole prints ?
Trying a different approach now bigot? You were nailed by Tim...now
you play Holmes and rearrange your wording trying not to look like the
fool you are. BTW....nice civility in the title. You wonder why your
ridiculed day after day....you deserve it!
Gil Jesus
wrote:
Well, there's one who can't answer the question.
justm...@gmail.com
Has nothing to do with the question, it has everything to do with your
stupidity in your original comments where you were proven wrong, and
now trying to change everything around. Ever think he could have
haphazardly tried wiping the prints from the rifle before hiding it,
destroying a good portion of the prints?
Of course not, that would once again prove you an idiot. LOL
Tell us Detective Duf-ass...if you just shot someone would you leave
your weapon at the crime scene and make sure that all of your finger
prints where on it to be traced back to you? What a ignorant ass you
are.
David Von Pein
>>> "In what fashion would one handle a rifle so that only partial fingerprints were left on it and not whole prints?" <<<
What is your explanation, then, from your own "CT POV" for how the
partial prints DID, indeed, get on Rifle C2766...if they weren't put
there by the person who used that gun to fire bullets at JFK on Nov.
22?
Surely those "partial" prints belong to SOMEBODY...even from a CT POV,
right? So what's your "CT" explanation for how only "partials" and not
whole prints were on that gun?
This seems very similar to the argument that kooks constantly dredge
up when they ask one of their favorite questions: "How did Oswald
manage to avoid being seen by Adams and Styles (or anybody else) on
the back stairs just after the shooting?"
But when confronted with the next logical question by LNers concerning
that matter, CTers usually are silent. That question being: "Well,
SOMEBODY was certainly up on the sixth floor with a gun on Nov.
22...how did THAT PERSON(S) get away slick as a whistle without Adams
and Styles (et al) seeing him/them?"
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:06�am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:01 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 7:13 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In what fashion would one handle a rifle so that only partial
> > > > fingerprints were left on it and not whole prints ?
>
> > > Trying a different approach now bigot? You were nailed by Tim...now
> > > you play Holmes and rearrange your wording trying not to look like the
> > > fool you are. BTW....nice civility in the title. You wonder why your
> > > ridiculed day after day....you deserve it!
>
> > Well, there's one who can't answer the question.
>
> Has nothing to do with the question, it has everything to do with your
> stupidity in your original comments where you were proven wrong, and
> now trying to change everything around. Ever think he could have
> haphazardly tried wiping the prints from the rifle before hiding it,
> destroying a good portion of the prints?
The prints weren't damaged, Joey:
Mr. DULLES. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could
have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir ; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the
prints just like they were.
( 4 H 21 )
---------------------------------------------------
> Of course not, that would once again prove you an idiot. LOL
> Tell us Detective Duf-ass...if you just shot someone would you leave
> your weapon at the crime scene and make sure that all of your finger
> prints where on it to be traced back to you? What a ignorant ass you
> are.
----------------------------------------------------
In what fashion would one handle a rifle so that only partial
fingerprints were left on it and not whole prints ?
Answer the question, Joey.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretending you didn't see my response is not going to work little
bigot boy. One would wipe off the prints or try to, before placing the
rifle down at the crime scene to be found by officials. Is there a
part of this you are having trouble understanding Gilly Girl?
Again, I will ask you...if you just shot someone would you leave your
weapon on the scene with all of your fingerprints defined perfectly so
they could track you down IF you managed to escape in the first
place??
Answer the question Gilly Girl, I realize this is going to take some
common sense which you neglect to have in that pea sized brain of
yours, but think real hard and then answer the question. You got your
answer from me, bigot....don't pretend I didn't give you one.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> Pretending you didn't see my response is not going to work little
> bigot boy. One would wipe off the prints or try to, before placing the
> rifle down at the crime scene to be found by officials.
The rifle wasn't "placed" Joey. The partial prints were not smudged,
wiped, or damaged in any way.
Now answer the question:
justm...@gmail.com
You tell me Detective Duf-ass....anyone that handled that rifle
whether it was LHO or any other person had enough smarts to be able to
leave prints that were not able to be identified in your eyes.
Soooooo, if this is the case and we rule OUT LHO, you tell me how
someone could accomplish this amazing feat. Right now you are trying
to pose a question to exonerate your little idol LHO from the crime.
You have changed your question to a "general" question in which case
it is now up to YOU to tell the rest of us how this could be done.
You're detective work keeps backfiring on you Duf-ass, just like your
failure to be a cop. LMFAO at your knowledge of the police force Gilly
Girl, what were you in the Pansy Pants unit?
Gil Jesus
Tell us how Oswald knew enough to wipe off the FULL prints, but not
the partials.
Then answer my original question.
justm...@gmail.com
I would imagine LHO knew exactly where his hands were planted on the
rifle to be able to wipe off the full prints...not to mention the fact
that he had to do this in hurry and get the hell out of town. Now, I'm
going to ask you again Gilly Girl, better yet, prove that LHO didn't
wipe the FULL prints off the rifle before leaving.
Impossible to do just as your question is impossible to answer because
LHO is dead and we have no idea what he did after pulling the trigger
and leaving other then placing the rifle where he left it. Maybe he
used his shirt to hold the rifle while firing to avoid leaving prints.
I won't be like you and say that is a given, because none of this can
be proven. The man is dead.... and until you morons can come up with
another weapon, shooter, and bullets....you'll keep walking in circles
just like the rest of the mentally ill that have no life. Only
difference is they are in institutions where a few of you should be
committed too. LOL
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:34�am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Joey:
>
> > Tell us how Oswald knew enough to wipe off the FULL prints, but not
> > the partials.
>
> > Then answer my original question.
>
> I would imagine LHO knew exactly where his hands were planted on the
> rifle to be able to wipe off the full prints...not to mention the fact
> that he had to do this in hurry and get the hell out of town.
ROFLMAO