ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE TROLLS
Gil Jesus
three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and
finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to only
leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger
(WR p. 135) ?
Bud
Why do you call on LN to cure your ignorance? The science behind
fingerprints is available on the internet, look it up.
Gil Jesus
I'm asking how he PHYSICALLY could have done it.
Has nothing to do with fingerprint science.
IDIOT.
Bud
Really? The appearance and collecting of fingerprints has nothing to
do with the science of fingerprints?
> IDIOT.
Gil Jesus
Are you going to answer the question or are you going to run by
changing the subject ?
Bud
The subject is fingerprints. Since you are ignorant of the science
pertaining to them, I suggested you cure your ignorance by looking up
the relevant information readily available on the internet. In that
way you might stop relying on other people to explain things you could
easily find out about yourself. For instance, do fingerprint experts
say that every time an object is touched that a fingerprint is
retained on that item? This is a good place to for you to start your
quest for knowledge. Ignorance can be cured, but only by you, not by
others.
bigdog
Giltardo cure his ignorance??? Surely, you're joking. You can't teach
an old dog new tricks.
Gil Jesus
Never answer the question and lead the discussion away from the
subject matter.
This is what the trolls do when they can't defend their evidence.
The subject matter is not fingerprints or how they are formed..
In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this
three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and
finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY
mucher1
It's freshingly candid of you to admit that Oswald *did* leave prints
on the paper bag that was found near the sniper's nest. However, in
typically dishonest fashion, you pretend that the two latents
identified as Oswald's left index fingerprint and right palmprint,
respectively, were the *only* prints found on the bag. In fact, we
don't know how many *unidentifiable* (weak, fragmentary, smudged,
overlapping, etc.) prints there were. To quote the WR: "No other
identifiable prints were found on the bag."
Bud
> This is typical Bud.
>
> Never answer the question and lead the discussion away from the
> subject matter.
>
> This is what the trolls do when they can't defend their evidence.
>
> The subject matter is not fingerprints or how they are formed..
<snicker> You are a fucking retard. You ask a question pertaining to
fingerprints, you`re totally ignorant of the subject you brought up,
and when I suggest you cure your ignorance of the subject you brought
up, you rule your ignorance irrelevant.
Here, I`ll lead a jackass to water...
http://onin.com/fp/fingerprints_for_dummies_mar05.pdf
It took me 5 seconds to find it, and 5 seconds to see where it said
that dusting for fingerprints on paper yields few prints. The
information is available, it`s just that you are too retarded to find
or apply the available information. Nobody else can help you with
this, it`s something you have to bring to the table. This is one of
the reason you and your fellow retards are worst candidates imaginable
to be looking into this subject or any other.
> In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this
> three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and
> finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY
> leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger
> (WR p. 135) ?
Yah, thats right, repeat your ignorance instead of addressing it.
A retard saying this is unusual or suspicious is meaningless, unless
said retard can back up that assertion with some information coming
from experts in that field.
David Von Pein
>>> "In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger?" <<<
Here, folks, we have another excellent example of an "Anybody But
Oswald" mega-kook in action.
I.E.,
Gilbert J. Jesus (the mega-kook in question) has ironclad PROOF right
in front of him (via the two LHO prints found on the bag) showing that
Lee Harvey Oswald handled the brown paper bag [CE142] that was found
by police in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.
But Gilbert, instead of accepting the obvious FACT that his favorite
patsy for all 11/22/63 murders--Lee H. Oswald--handled that bag on the
same day JFK was assassinated with a gun owned by the same Mr. Oswald,
wonders how he can manage to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
with respect to this "fingerprints on the paper bag" issue.
So, Gil will try to make Oswald appear innocent by asking why there
weren't MORE prints of LHO's on the bag, which is a bag that already
has TWO of his prints on it (verifying that Oswald definitely was in
possession of that bag at some point prior to the police finding it on
the afternoon of November 22nd).
This is kind of like declaring Oswald innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder
because there were only about TWELVE total witnesses who either saw
Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene (gun in hand) right after the
murder.
Gil probably thinks it takes a minimum of TWENTY witnesses to
definitively prove someone is guilty of a crime. Twelve won't cut it
in Gil's CT world.
And it probably takes at least FIVE bullet shells from Oswald's gun to
prove that it was LHO's gun that killed Tippit. Having only four
shells on Tenth Street puts the DPD one short of the promised land.
Tomorrow's meaningless question that Gil will ask when he arrives here
at the acj asylum at around 7:00 AM EDT:
WHY WEREN'T FIBERS FROM THE SEAT OF WESLEY FRAZIER'S CAR
EMBEDDED ONTO THE PAPER BAG THAT OSWALD ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT INTO THE
DEPOSITORY ON THE MORNING OF THE ASSASSINATION?
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
Robert
Typical, BudCon has NO answer, and who can blame him? There is NONE
for this foolishness!
Robert
Let's make it simple for BudCon. BudCon, ONE of your two witnesses
said she (Mrs. Randle) saw LHO hold the bag by the top!
NOW since you won't answer Gil's question about him making it (and
putting it down and picking it up repeatedly) can you explain this for
us?
HOW can there be NO prints at the points Mrs. Randle (YOUR witness)
said she saw him holding the bag by?
Robert
> >>> "In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger?" <<<
>
> Here, folks, we have another excellent example of an "Anybody But
> Oswald" mega-kook in action.
How does asking this logical question have anything to do with LHO? I
think it is YOUR OBSESSION -- NO ONE BUT LHO -- that leads you there.
> I.E.,
>
> Gilbert J. Jesus (the mega-kook in question) has ironclad PROOF right
> in front of him (via the two LHO prints found on the bag) showing that
> Lee Harvey Oswald handled the brown paper bag [CE142] that was found
> by police in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.
Why don't these prints MATCH the claim of YOUR OTHER WITNESS (Mrs.
Randle)?
Care to explain that one?
How about the one where the WC couldn't show how and when LHO made
this bag?
> But Gilbert, instead of accepting the obvious FACT that his favorite
> patsy for all 11/22/63 murders--Lee H. Oswald--handled that bag on the
> same day JFK was assassinated with a gun owned by the same Mr. Oswald,
> wonders how he can manage to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
> with respect to this "fingerprints on the paper bag" issue.
Gil, like most logical people, NEEDS TO SEE EVIDENCE and YOUR babble
is not providing any?
Why do the prints DIFFER from YOUR OWN witnesses memories?
> So, Gil will try to make Oswald appear innocent by asking why there
> weren't MORE prints of LHO's on the bag, which is a bag that already
> has TWO of his prints on it (verifying that Oswald definitely was in
> possession of that bag at some point prior to the police finding it on
> the afternoon of November 22nd).
I don't think Gil is trying to make LHO look "innocent" (and he can
correct me if I'm wrong), but rather is asking how your evidence
doesn't match with the FACTS.
Why are you so upset by this question? IF you were speaking the truth
you would have NO reason to be sooooo upset by it.
> This is kind of like declaring Oswald innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder
> because there were only about TWELVE total witnesses who either saw
> Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene (gun in hand) right after the
> murder.
YOU are lying. NO one ID'd him without leading questions from the
WC's lawyers.
Changing the topic won't help you either.
> Gil probably thinks it takes a minimum of TWENTY witnesses to
> definitively prove someone is guilty of a crime. Twelve won't cut it
> in Gil's CT world.
Why NOT stick with the topic at hand troll? Why are you so upset with
the fact that YOUR OWN witnesses statements don't match the evidence
the WC gave us?
> And it probably takes at least FIVE bullet shells from Oswald's gun to
> prove that it was LHO's gun that killed Tippit. Having only four
> shells on Tenth Street puts the DPD one short of the promised land.
More deflection by the troll!
He can't answer the question at a hand so he is trying to distract.
How sad.
> Tomorrow's meaningless question that Gil will ask when he arrives here
> at the acj asylum at around 7:00 AM EDT:
>
> WHY WEREN'T FIBERS FROM THE SEAT OF WESLEY FRAZIER'S CAR
> EMBEDDED ONTO THE PAPER BAG THAT OSWALD ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT INTO THE
> DEPOSITORY ON THE MORNING OF THE ASSASSINATION?
Whew, Dave Von Con finished and NEVER EXPLAINED OR TRIED TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION!
How typical of him.
http://www.oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
AND THEN HE SAYS WE ARE BIASED! LHO is guilty to him with NO verdict
or solid evidence! LOL!!
David Von Pein
1.) Oswald's gun [CE139] is found on the 6th Floor.
2.) Oswald's palmprint is on the gun found on the 6th Floor.
3.) Oswald's fingerprints are on the trigger housing of the rifle
found on the 6th Floor (source: Vincent Scalice).
4.) Oswald's prints (x 3) are on two of the boxes DEEP INSIDE the
Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor.
5.) Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint are on the bag found inside the
Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor.
6.) Bullet cartridge cases (x 3) from Oswald's rifle are found in the
Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor.
7.) Oswald took a "bulky", large-ish brown paper bag with him to work
on 11/22/63.
8.) An EMPTY brown paper bag (with the aforementioned 2 prints of
LHO's) is found under the 6th-Floor window from where shots were fired
at JFK.
9.) Bullets from Oswald's rifle are found in two different places
after the shooting (Parkland and limo).
10.) To quote Walter Cronkite -- "Oswald was a liar." [Cronkite; CBS
News; 09/27/64]
The above ten items don't mean a hill of beans to the resident
conspiracy-hungry retards at this forum.
The above ten items are merely things to be summarily thrown out the
nearest window by said retards.
It makes me wonder --- Just what DOES qualify as "Real Evidence" in a
conspiracy theorist's mixed-up world? Does anything qualify--such as
stuff with a chain of custody that normally isn't even questioned by
most CTers (such as limo fragments CE567 and CE569)?
Or would certain conspiracy-happy individuals like to pretend that
those two bullet fragments from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano were
"planted" too?
Bud
I pointed him (and presumably you if you clicked on the link) to
where the answer could be found. Retards can`t apply information,
thats no fault of mine.
> HOW can there be NO prints at the points Mrs. Randle (YOUR witness)
> said she saw him holding the bag by?
Because you are an idiot, who knows nothing about the science of
fingerprints. Quote an expert that says that seeing a person touching
paper must leave a print there, retard.
Bud
> On Oct 5, 9:36 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger?" <<<
>
> > Here, folks, we have another excellent example of an "Anybody But
> > Oswald" mega-kook in action.
>
> How does asking this logical question have anything to do with LHO?
It wasn`t a logical question, it was an ignorant one, as i`ve shown.
Gil is ignorant of fingerprint science, as are you.
> I
> think it is YOUR OBSESSION -- NO ONE BUT LHO -- that leads you there.
>
> > I.E.,
>
> > Gilbert J. Jesus (the mega-kook in question) has ironclad PROOF right
> > in front of him (via the two LHO prints found on the bag) showing that
> > Lee Harvey Oswald handled the brown paper bag [CE142] that was found
> > by police in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.
>
> Why don't these prints MATCH the claim of YOUR OTHER WITNESS (Mrs.
> Randle)?
Randle made no claims about fingerprints, idiot.
> Care to explain that one?
>
> How about the one where the WC couldn't show how and when LHO made
> this bag?
The prosecution couldn`t even produce the knife OJ used on his wife.
Didn`t stop them from concluding he stabbed his wife to death.
> > But Gilbert, instead of accepting the obvious FACT that his favorite
> > patsy for all 11/22/63 murders--Lee H. Oswald--handled that bag on the
> > same day JFK was assassinated with a gun owned by the same Mr. Oswald,
> > wonders how he can manage to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
> > with respect to this "fingerprints on the paper bag" issue.
>
> Gil, like most logical people, NEEDS TO SEE EVIDENCE and YOUR babble
> is not providing any?
The bag with Oswald`s prints is evidence, retard.
> Why do the prints DIFFER from YOUR OWN witnesses memories?
Who said that the prints found on the bag had to be made when LMR
was observing? Oh, thats right, retards.
> > So, Gil will try to make Oswald appear innocent by asking why there
> > weren't MORE prints of LHO's on the bag, which is a bag that already
> > has TWO of his prints on it (verifying that Oswald definitely was in
> > possession of that bag at some point prior to the police finding it on
> > the afternoon of November 22nd).
>
> I don't think Gil is trying to make LHO look "innocent" (and he can
> correct me if I'm wrong), but rather is asking how your evidence
> doesn't match with the FACTS.
Once more, it isn`t the evidence that is the problem. The problem is
you retards.
> Why are you so upset by this question? IF you were speaking the truth
> you would have NO reason to be sooooo upset by it.
>
> > This is kind of like declaring Oswald innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder
> > because there were only about TWELVE total witnesses who either saw
> > Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene (gun in hand) right after the
> > murder.
>
> YOU are lying.
You are retarded.
>NO one ID'd him without leading questions from the
> WC's lawyers.
The line-ups where Oswald was selected were performed before the
warren commission was even formed, you fucking retard.
> Changing the topic won't help you either.
>
> > Gil probably thinks it takes a minimum of TWENTY witnesses to
> > definitively prove someone is guilty of a crime. Twelve won't cut it
> > in Gil's CT world.
>
> Why NOT stick with the topic at hand troll? Why are you so upset with
> the fact that YOUR OWN witnesses statements don't match the evidence
> the WC gave us?
Are prints produced every time an object is touched?