Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #37 - Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

(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 cowards to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never identified.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:33:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

First, Bugliosi`s full argument that Ben is afraid to address...

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.81 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.

Notice that in addition to the existence of the fingerprints Bugliosi also uses the positioning of the the fingerprints to make his arguments. Ben claimed he checked the list he is working off of to make sure they arguments reflected Bugliosi`s true arguments, but of course he was lying.

> They would be *EXPECTED* to be there...

Yes, since he was seen shooting from there.

> he worked there.

A lot of people worked there. Their fingerprints were not all over the SN.

> What should *NOT* be there are prints from an *UNKNOWN* person who didn't work there -

On what grounds do you make the statement that fingerprints that are not identified at a crime scene are uncommon?

> and were never identified.

How many people were they checked against? Not many.

> Far from being evidence against Oswald, the fingerprint evidence instead shows that leads weren't followed up by the DPD & FBI.

On what grounds do you say this is a lead? On what grounds do you say it wasn`t followed up on?

In typical retard fashion Ben ignores the evidence that does go in a clear direction and focuses on evidence he can go nowhere with.

> 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.

Prints aren`t left every time you touch something.

> Yes, you read that right! His forearms. It truly takes a Believer to come up with these explanations...
>
> And cowards to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never identified.

Where can unknown evidence take you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 6:55:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:33:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.
>

> First, Bugliosi`s full argument that BT George is afraid to address...

>
> 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.81 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.
>
> Notice that in addition to the existence of the fingerprints Bugliosi also uses the positioning of the the fingerprints to make his arguments. Ben claimed he checked the list he is working off of to make sure they arguments reflected Bugliosi`s true arguments, but of course he was lying.

And yet, my answer is the same to the above full quote. Here it is again

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.

[David Von Pein]

"Jean Davison said something [four years] ago that deserves a replay:

[quote on:]

"Unlike every other employee, Oswald just happened [to] be near the shooter's likely escape route shortly after the shooting? Is that bad luck or what?" -- J. Davison; May 2013

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/p3_ITFCeIkA/XQBbtUEbKIUJ

[quote off]

Jean's comment repeated above should be looked at from another context and point-of-view too -- that is: Oswald is certainly "unlike every other employee" when we COMBINE both of these things listed below:

1.) Oswald was positively located "near the shooter's likely escape route" within just two minutes of the assassination.

And:

2.) Oswald was "unlike every other employee" in the Book Depository because it was HIS RIFLE (not another employee's) that was found on the sixth floor after the assassination. And his rifle was found very near the same staircase that Oswald was also very near within just two minutes after that very same rifle was used by somebody to fire bullets at President Kennedy.

When adding #1 and #2 together, these words written by Jean certainly do apply to Lee Harvey Oswald if he were innocent of shooting the President -- Is that bad luck or what?" -- DVP; July 2013

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1165.html

[End 2013 Quotes.]

And we could also add in the additional "bad luck" that poor "innocent" Lee Oswald was having on 11/22/63.....

Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints just happened to (per CTers) INNOCENTLY be on two of the boxes deep inside the Sniper's Nest (where Kennedy's "real killer" was located at 12:30 PM).

The guy was a walking BAD LUCK CHARM on November 22nd, wasn't he?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 7:47:11 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> "Jean Davison said something [four years] ago that deserves a replay:

If you're too much a coward to actually ADDRESS the topic I raise, then don't pretend to respond in the same thread.

Create a new thread.

Or QUOTE MY WORDS and respond to *THEM*.

Coward!

[David Von Pein]

Go to hell. I'll post wherever I want. Take a flying leap, prick.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 10:35:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 6:55:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:33:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.
> >
> > First, Bugliosi`s full argument that BT George is afraid to address...

Yes, Ben is still doing the scumbag thing of changing others posters words.

> >
> > 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.81 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.
> >
> > Notice that in addition to the existence of the fingerprints Bugliosi also uses the positioning of the the fingerprints to make his arguments. Ben claimed he checked the list he is working off of to make sure they arguments reflected Bugliosi`s true arguments, but of course he was lying.
>
> And yet, my answer is the same to the above full quote. Here it is again
>
> 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 cowards to avoid the unknown fingerprints that were never identified.

Ben continues his impressive showing of running from every counter point made. This is not a man you can have an honest discussion of ideas with, he talks nonsense then cut and runs when the flaws in his thinking are pointed out.

[Bud]

<snicker> I responded to your words and you removed what I wrote, chickenshit.

> Coward!

[Ben Holmes]

LOL!!! It's not I who will be going to hell.

"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight." Proverbs 12:22

I'll continue to point out your abject cowardice...

You pretend to respond - BUT YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO THE TOPIC!

Here it is again in case you forgot what you were running from:

(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.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 8:26:36 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 10:35:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 6:55:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:33:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.
> > >
> > > First, Bugliosi`s full argument that BT George is afraid to address...
>
> Yes, Ben is still doing the scumbag thing of changing others posters words.

One would think you'd learn your lesson, and start being honest.

"The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace." - Proverbs 13:5

[Ben Holmes]

Ad hominem is simply an admission that you lost.

[Bud]

"The words of the retarded are meaningless, because they are retarded." -Kangaroos 13:22

[Bud]

You removed my words because you were afraid to address what I said. Why are you here if you are too afraid to discuss ideas?

[Ben Holmes]

One would think you'd learn your lesson, and start being honest... instead, you illustrate what a kook you are.

[Ben Holmes]

There isn't a believer on the planet who has the credibility to argue that I cannot answer anything a believer spouts.

The opposite is provably not true.

[Bud]

Dost thou display of douchebaggery pleaseth the Lord, Ben?

[Bud]

So your constant running is some kind of clever ruse?