Sunday Dental Thread: Leaking Composite Restorations and the Kennedy Assassination:

[DanTex]

58. First of all, there was a palm print, and second of all, lack of fingerprints is

not evidence of lack of handling the rifle.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm

If the palm print under the rifle were the only evidence against Oswald, then you would have a point. But that's far from the case. We know for a fact that it was his rifle that fired all three shots, and that they was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. We know he owned the rifle, and we know that he made a special trip home the night before, and on his way to work, he carried a rifle-sized bag that he claimed were "curtain rods", even though his apartment in Dallas already had curtain rods.

There was an eyewitness who saw him in the window during the shooting, gave an accurate description to the police immediately afterwards, and later testified to the WC, under oath, that he was sure Oswald was the man he saw.

Oswald was last seen by anyone before the shooting on the 6th floor, when another employee asked if he was heading down for lunch and he said no. Oswald's prints were all over the "sniper's nest" where the shooting took place. No employee at the TSBD saw anyone else in the building that didn't work there. In police custody, Oswald lied and claimed he was having lunch at the time, but the people he was supposedly in the same room with testified that they didn't see him. Oswald was the only employee of the TSBD who fled the scene after the shooting, and he subsequently shot a Dallas police officer who tried to question him.

BTW, if you think that Oswald was CIA, why would you think that he wasn't actually the shooter?