Reply #139: Wrong...

[SDuderstadt]

you need to take Logic again. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required. If someone makes a claim, then is asked for proof of the claim, that doesn't make the person asking for proof the claimant. In fact, that's a form of logical fallacy called "trying to shift the burden of proof" to the questioner. If you read the other posts, McClellan has not only been roundly debunked, the claim is contradicted by the facts.

In other posts, it is claimed that the Warren Commission noted an unidentified fingerprint developed from one of the cartons in the snipers's nest. It is further claimed that, some years later, a fingerprint technician named Darby matched the unidentified fingerprint from the scene to the fingerprint of one Malcolm Wallace, an associate of LBJ. At least one post implied that the Warren Commission cknowledged this, which doesn't even make sense, given their eventual conclusion. This was a basis for Barr McClellan to claim that Malcolm Wallace was, in fact, one of JFK's assassins.

The problem with this claim is it starts with a lie and the whole thing falls apart from there. 20 indentifiable fingerprints and 8 palm prints were developed at the scene, for a total of 28 prints. ALL except ONE matched Oswald, other book depository employees and two law enforcement employees involved in processing the print evidence. Seems pretty damning, right? Except for the fact that the unidentified print was a PALM PRINT, not a fingerprint. As I stated earlier, once the initial lie is exposed, the rest of the claim falls apart.

One post claimed that CE exhibit 29 was the infamous unidentified "fingerprint", which is completely bogus. Follow the link provided below and you'll see that CE 29 is actually an image of Marina Oswald's passport. How anyone can confuse a passport with a fingerprint is beyond me.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0081a.htm


One post linked to CE 3131, asserting that it supported the fingerprint claim being made. The problem with this claim is that it is actually a letter from the FBI to WC General Counsel Rankin stating that all prints are matched to the people stated above with the exception of a PALM PRINT. Again, I don't understand how anyone can confuse a palm print with a fingerprint. The real delicious irony here is that the poster linked to evidence that actually refutes their own claim. And people wonder why I don't respect CT's or their lack of critical thinking skills. Follow the link below to CE 3131 and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm


The only thing the post got right is that CE 1301 IS, in fact, a picture of the sniper's nest. Why the poster linked to this is unclear, unless the poster somehow believes we won't notice the difference between a palm print and a fingerprint. In other words, the claims mixes in one true statement, then combines it with several false statements in order to allege something that is not remotely true. But, then again, we've come to expect that from CT's. Follow the link to CE 1301 below and you'll see the ONLY thing the poster actually got right.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm


P.S. Before you conclude that I must be a RWer, I'll match my liberal credentials against anyone here. To those liberals who claim I must be a RWer because I "support the official story", I must not have gotten the memo that said in order to be a true liberal, one has to abandon critical thinking.