JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, but I don't understand the question. Re-phrase it.

You linked to a document that detailed how fascimalies of fingerprints could be obtained from a corpse for comparrison or identification, using magnizium powder. These in no way can be applied to the rifle as unprocessed palmprints or fingerprints.

They would be silver or black (depending on the brand of powder used) images of prints, not the actual sweat residue prints that were found by processing.

Are you able to see why the link you posted in no way supports your claim that the palm print was applied to the rifle after the death of LHO?

 

[kookbreaker]

You are very confused.

Again, wrong. You are the confused person here, and you are trying to cover that fact with arrogance and one line quips.

I'll take the time to explain:

You have been claiming that 'there is evidence' (there isn't, but we'll let that slide for now) that the DPD or the FBI took the Carcano to the morgue and, like a scene out of that awful JFK movie, put the gun in Oswald's dead hand to get the palm print.

Problem with that theory is that fingerprints like that are made by oils on the hand - oils that are caused by sweat.

The dead do not sweat.

After being told this several times you foolishly posted a pdf link about getting identification prints off of a dead body. A completely different process and purpose from the 'they put his prints on the rifle at the morgue' theory you've been repeating.

Confusion - you.

Although I don't think you are confused so much as you are deliberately trying to obfuscate.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are very confused.

No he is not. Let's look at what he wrote:
"You just quoted a method for getting ink or powder prints from a corpse. Not a method for getting a latent print from a corpse."

This is in accounts true. Because you did indeed post a link to a method of obtaining a print for identification or ccomparrison. Not for leaving a latent print upon a rifle.

There is no evidence he was confused when telling you the clear and blatant truth.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's a sophomoric question. Nothing I have presented has been debunked. The Odio incident is evidence of a probably conspiracy. Fact is, I have yet to present evidence of a 2nd shooter. That is coming. What I have basically done, is to challenge all of you "critical thinkers' who believe in the Lone Nut fairy tale to present some irrefutable evidence. You have failed to do so. All you have done is talked about a rifle which I have shown is questionable as to ownership and location, and prints, which have clearly been shown to be highly questionable or non-existent. Moreover, no one has been able to place Oswald in that building with a rifle in his hand.

Your claims of "evidence" of conspiracy: Debunked.
Your claims about the photographs: Debunked.
Your claims about the palm prints on the rifle: Debunked.

So far you have posted no evidence that has not been debunked. To claim otherwise when we can all read this thread in full is dishonest or dillusional.

Further more (and again): Oswald has been placed in the building. His print was found on the rifle. It was his rifle. Your claim nobody has placed him there is plain dumb, because it is asking for a degree of evidence that is impossible with the limitations of the real world.

However, Oswald is the only viable suspect. And all the actual evidence points towards him. He was the only person we know to have been in the location from which the shots were fired, at the time the shots were fired, and is the only person we can prove to have held the rifle.

So let's turn your own standard against you: You have NOT proven as an absolute certainty that LHO was NOT in that location with rifle in hand.

Until you can meet the standard, do not apply it to others. Especially when it means dishonestly misrepresneting what the sceptics of your conspiracy theory have claimed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To say there is no evidence that the b/y photos were faked is itself a denial of the truth. There is a mountain of evidence as presented in the five Jack White u-tubes, and elsewhere, none of which have even been addressed, much less refuted. Nor has anyone attempted to duplicate my own example of an impossible shadow refraction. As far as Marina changing stories, they stand by themselves to be believed or not believed. But it is impossible for the photos in evidence to be the ones she took if her back was to the stairs.

Or it is an acceptance that expert analysis of the photographs show no sign of fakery or tampering. That the key conceit used to claim they are fake, the shadows, are easily explained with out fakery.

The photos being impossible for her to have taken with her back to the stairs does not mean she did not take the photographs, as she has claimed on several occassions.

Oh and never refuted?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

And perhaps you missed the posts Walter Ego made on the subject of the photographs? Or does Jack White making the claims suddenly change? As they appear to be the exact same claims the other experts made, then changed their minds about on seeing the originals. Same claims. Same rebuttle. No matter who makes them.

 

[bynmdsue]

Wow. He really shot himself in the foot with that fingerprint boondoggle. This is great! Keep it up!

 

[Robert Prey]

Or it is an acceptance that expert analysis of the photographs show no sign of fakery or tampering. That the key conceit used to claim they are fake, the shadows, are easily explained with out fakery.

The photos being impossible for her to have taken with her back to the stairs does not mean she did not take the photographs, as she has claimed on several occassions.

Oh and never refuted?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

And perhaps you missed the posts Walter Ego made on the subject of the photographs? Or does Jack White making the claims suddenly change? As they appear to be the exact same claims the other experts made, then changed their minds about on seeing the originals. Same claims. Same rebuttle. No matter who makes them.

So far, no one has refuted any of the b/y photo anomalies except via ad hominem attack. That's all you guys have got. You dare not address the evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

No he is not. Let's look at what he wrote:
"You just quoted a method for getting ink or powder prints from a corpse. Not a method for getting a latent print from a corpse."

This is in accounts true. Because you did indeed post a link to a method of obtaining a print for identification or ccomparrison. Not for leaving a latent print upon a rifle.

There is no evidence he was confused when telling you the clear and blatant truth.

A print from the fingers or the palm of a corpse is not "latent."

 

[Robert Prey]

Again, wrong. You are the confused person here, and you are trying to cover that fact with arrogance and one line quips.

I'll take the time to explain:

You have been claiming that 'there is evidence' (there isn't, but we'll let that slide for now) that the DPD or the FBI took the Carcano to the morgue and, like a scene out of that awful JFK movie, put the gun in Oswald's dead hand to get the palm print.

Problem with that theory is that fingerprints like that are made by oils on the hand - oils that are caused by sweat.

The dead do not sweat.

After being told this several times you foolishly posted a pdf link about getting identification prints off of a dead body. A completely different process and purpose from the 'they put his prints on the rifle at the morgue' theory you've been repeating.

Confusion - you.

Although I don't think you are confused so much as you are deliberately trying to obfuscate.

You truly are confused. I never made the claim that a rifle was taken to the morgue. That would not be necessary to make a forgery.

 

[Walter Ego]

I have yet to present evidence of a 2nd shooter. That is coming.

Please hurry up and do so that everyone including yourself can find something else to do... and don't forget the "final nail." Would before Thanksgiving be an unreasonable deadline? When I titled this thread "JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends," I didn't intend the last part of the title to be prophetic.

 

[Robert Prey]

O
The photos being impossible for her to have taken with her back to the stairs does not mean she did not take the photographs, as she has claimed on several occassions.

Let me try to make this ABC kindygarten simple. If Marina did not take the photos that are in evidence, then her claim is

She Did Not Take the Photos.

Her claim that she took other photos is a whole different claim.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So far, no one has refuted any of the b/y photo anomalies except via ad hominem attack. That's all you guys have got. You dare not address the evidence.

So explain again why you don't accept I Ratant proving the shadows are not impossible. Or Walter Ego providing two of your sources retracting their claims? Or indeed the sources he posted of experts examing the photographs and claiming they are not fake.

You are wrong about it there being adhominem attacks. You are wrong about that being ther only way the photos were debunked. If those untruths are deliberate it makes you a liar. If they are from your misunderstanding they make you a fool. Which would you rather admit to if you wont rescind this comment? (Rescinding the comment is the only way to retain good faith from other users. I reccomend it as your course of action here.)

 

[Tomtomkent]

You truly are confused. I never made the claim that a rifle was taken to the morgue. That would not be necessary to make a forgery.

So please, by all means explain when the prints did get on the rifle. And how. And bare in mind they were latent prints.

Or has your story now changed?

 

[kookbreaker]

You truly are confused. I never made the claim that a rifle was taken to the morgue. That would not be necessary to make a forgery.

Oh, so in post 118 when you quote JIm Marrs as saying:

""..."Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.' In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars"

You were just blowing smoke?

Either way, Marrs is wrong, and you are wrong. You cannot get prints off a corpse like that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let me try to make this ABC kindygarten simple. If Marina did not take the photos that are in evidence, then her claim is

She Did Not Take the Photos.

Her claim that she took other photos is a whole different claim.

Except of course she claimed she did. Which you have previously asserted she did under pressure, with out offering any evidence the claim was made under pressure.

And you think other people are having trouble gripping the complexeties of this? By your own admission she has made contradictory statements. It doesnt matter how big the font you use to write your favourite, it still isn't supported by evidence.

But hey, lets pretend she didnt take them... they still werent faked. There is no evidence they were tampered with. They are still photos of LHO holding a rifle you claim was not his. A rifle it has been proven he bought. Photos which show no signs of being tampered with.

Or had that part slipped your mind?

 

[kookbreaker]

Let me try to make this ABC kindygarten simple. If Marina did not take the photos that are in evidence, then her claim is

She Did Not Take the Photos.

Her claim that she took other photos is a whole different claim.

Marina told the HSCA and the WC that she took the photos in question. In 2000 she told Bugliosi the same. In 1993-94 she also told Posner the same thing.

Now while she told Livingston something else, one must consider that while Marina is a willful woman she has also had conspriacy nutters whispering nonsense in her ears for decades. The period from the late 70's through the early 90's was probably her at her worst and under the influence of some of the craziest CT buffs. It is when she agreed to have Lee's body exhumed, among other things. Eventually she sorted out that these things out and now stands by what she said to the HSCA and the WC.

Combine that with the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence of any sort of tampering of the photos (beyond the ravings of kooks or other folks who didn't actuall do any tests) and the backyard photos can be accepted as authentic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, so in post 118 when you quote JIm Marrs as saying:



You were just blowing smoke?

Either way, Marrs is wrong, and you are wrong. You cannot get prints off a corpse like that.

Oh no... the goal poast is about to move again...

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's a sophomoric question.

No, it was a valid quesiton with your typical juvenile response. Have you calmed down enough to try to answer it now?

Nothing I have presented has been debunked. The Odio incident is evidence of a probably conspiracy. Fact is, I have yet to present evidence of a 2nd shooter. That is coming. What I have basically done, is to challenge all of you "critical thinkers' who believe in the Lone Nut fairy tale to present some irrefutable evidence. You have failed to do so. All you have done is talked about a rifle which I have shown is questionable as to ownership and location, and prints, which have clearly been shown to be highly questionable or non-existent.

No, there is no question that Oswald bought and owned the rifle and no question that his print was on it in an area that would only be accessible when the rifle was broken down. Why would you think there was any question about that at all?

Moreover, no one has been able to place Oswald in that building with a rifle in his hand.

Yes, the totality of the evidence does that. Why don't you want to see it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So far, no one has refuted any of the b/y photo anomalies except via ad hominem attack. That's all you guys have got. You dare not address the evidence.

No, you dishonestly ignore any refutations. Answer the question:



What times are it? LOL.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, the totality of the evidence does that. Why don't you want to see it?

Because it is a totality of evidence. A concept that Robert Prey has failed to understand throughout this thread. Why else would he keep asking for a single piece of magical evidence? Or fail to simply propse a single coherent case he thinks he has evidence for? None of his allegations form any kind of a totality. None of them connect at all.

Let's lay them out for him so maybe he can connect them for us:

LBJ and somebody working for him turned the WC into a cover up.
Two guys with no connection to LBJ or his staff tell somebody that they think LHO wants to kill the president. (And are apparently proof of conspiracy).
Marina denying the photographs were taken (except when she doesn't).
A guy getting (impossible) latent prints from a dead man (except when that wasn't what happened).
A DIFFERENT rifle being found proving LHO didn't do it because it was NOT the rifle LHO did NOT own (er... or did he own the mauser after all? As surely you would frame him by leaving the rifle that WAS in the photogrpahs that were NOT taken of- what the hell? None of these posts fit together at all! I give up!)

So who which of these allegations proves the conspiracy. The people who "conspired" with LHO or the Big Evil Coverup (that apparently is proevn because they are cover-uppers with out any proof?).

Was the mauser in the TBD to frame Oswald or was it this DIFFERENT rifle from before?

None of this stuff sticks together, but the same guy waffles it? What the hell is he trying to convince us of?