JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

What you have here is a single shadow that cannot be compared to any other. In 133B you have the shadow of the man, the shadow of the rifle and the shadow of outstretched hands while the live figure has vertical hands none of which is consistent. If you want to prove 133B genuine, then duplicate IT.

A single shadow? What picture are you looking at? Try this one with multiple shadows:



What times are it according to the shadows? You can duplicate it yourself. Try it. Show your working and post your results here.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Well now it appears that you and your Amen chorus simply retreat into outright denials of the truth. You have yet to address even one of the several anomalies in those photos, and that speaks volumes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry, but I won't dialogue with someone who cannot accept the truth of known basic facts. There is serious question as to who bought the rifle, there were no readable prints on it, and serious questions as to where it was found. Plus, no evidence that LHO had fired it or fired any weapon.

You are someone who cannot accept the truth of known basic facts. You were asked why you had questions. If you have nothing, just say so. So far, you've had nothing.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Bingo! The conspiracy community is so predictable.

They also never answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. And, when a question is inconvenient enough, they don't even acknowledge that it was asked in the first place.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

I have never said I believed anything Mariina said. I only point out she has changed her mind repeatedly, and the fact is, that if she did not take the photos in evidence, then a rational person would raise the rational question, "Who Did and for What Purpose?" And the photos are indeed filled with all kinds of clues as to forgery, and your refusal to address any of them speaks volumes.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Yeah, well that's one possibility, but not necessary to make a forgery. All they had to do is get Oswald's palm print whether from his dead body or from some other source, and then say, Hey, we got this off the rifle. Of course, there was no evidence of any readable palm or finger print on the rifle.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.)

Nobody has proven the adverse shadow that I refer to in 133B. No source has "retracted" claims. And the only experts that have upheld the photos as genuine have connections to Am. Intell, in other words the conspirators.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yeah, well that's one possibility, but not necessary to make a forgery. All they had to do is get Oswald's palm print whether from his dead body or from some other source, and then say, Hey, we got this off the rifle. Of course, there was no evidence of any readable palm or finger print on the rifle.

You make this too easy.

Warren Commission Report Chapter 4 page 123

56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. 57

Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

ETA:

Note that if your WAG is that the Warren Commission Report can't be trusted, you'll need to provide evidence for that. Real evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

It's coming. But first I need to give guys enough rope to hang yourselves on these other questions such as the B/y photos. So far, besides ad hominem attacks, all I hear is the sounds of

Silence!!!

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's coming. But first I need to give guys enough rope to hang yourselves on these other questions such as the B/y photos. So far, besides ad hominem attacks, all I hear is the sounds of

Silence!!!

That's because your fingers are in your ears and you're saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" loudly to yourself to block out reality. How's that working out for you?

 

[Robert Prey]

You make this too easy.

Warren Commission Report Chapter 4 page 123


ETA:

Note that if your WAG is that the Warren Commission Report can't be trusted, you'll need to provide evidence for that. Real evidence.

From the same page:
"Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints."

The basis for the WC concluding that there was a palm print did not come from Latona's confirmation that a later print submitted on a card was Oswald's, because they had his Palm Print for ID purposes, but only from the unconfirmed statements of Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police claiming that he had lifted a palm print by himself (with no confirming witnesses) But Day was asked to sign a statement swearing to the truth as to the lift, and he refused to do so. -- from "Rush to Judgement", citing FBI report in WR, vol XXVI

The fact remains that Latona found no identifiable prints.

Thus, the alleged palm print remains highly questionable and quite possibly a fraud, just like the B/Y photos and so much of the rest of the "evidence." And a real critical thinker would also keep in mind that the FBI itself is a prime suspect in the coverup.

 

[I Ratant]

It's coming. But first I need to give guys enough rope to hang yourselves on these other questions such as the B/y photos. So far, besides ad hominem attacks, all I hear is the sounds of

Silence!!!

.
We understand you can't analyze the photographs yourself.
But you could show on each of them where you guys' problems with the shadows are, and why these are problems.
Be verbose.
And attribute the actual sources of anything you post.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Obtaining Prints of Deceased Persons

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_20/CH7.PDF

"Major case prints are always obtained of
deceased persons connected with an
investigation. The prints are used to identify
or eliminate latent print evidence and to
identify the deceased. When the body is in an
Army mortuary in the graves registration
system, graves registration can provide the
major case prints.
Printing deceased persons may be done
before rigor mortis has set in, after rigor
mortis, or after decomposition has begun.
The means used to take the prints depends on
the conditions of the fingers and your
ingenuity. The process of inking the fingers
and rotating a square paper on the finger
might be used. This works best with the
recently dead or after rigor mortis is gone.
When rigor mortis is present you may have to
straighten the fingers. This can be
accomplished by pressing down on the
middle joint of the finger. You might dust the
fingers and palms with fingerprint powder
and lift the prints with tape or rubber lifters."

 

[Robert Prey]

.
We understand you can't analyze the photographs yourself.
But you could show on each of them where you guys' problems with the shadows are, and why these are problems.
Be verbose.
And attribute the actual sources of anything you post.

If you can't replicate a shadow, it's a problem.

 

[RoboTimbo]

From the same page:
"Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints."

The basis for the WC concluding that there was a palm print did not come from Latona's confirmation that a later print submitted on a card was Oswald's, because they had his Palm Print for ID purposes, but only from the unconfirmed statements of Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police claiming that he had lifted a palm print by himself (with no confirming witnesses) But Day was asked to sign a statement swearing to the truth as to the lift, and he refused to do so. -- from "Rush to Judgement", citing FBI report in WR, vol XXVI

The fact remains that Latona found no identifiable prints.

Thus, the alleged palm print remains highly questionable and quite possibly a fraud, just like the B/Y photos and so much of the rest of the "evidence." And a real critical thinker would also keep in mind that the FBI itself is a prime suspect in the coverup.

How many times are you going to be pwned because of prints?

Same page:

52 "Lifting" a print involves the use of adhesive material to remove the fingerprint powder which adheres to the original print. In this way the powdered impression is actually removed from the object.

and

56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle.

I can make some of the words bold if you think it will help.

 

[Walter Ego]

Official Confirmation That Robert Is A Troll

This is from the USA Politics forum.

So it's a different board, but the same old ad hominem attacks. I take it you don't have much use for the First Amendment. Perhaps your views would be more in keeping in a country like Cuba or North Korea.

Robert's hypocrisy of accusing others of ad homs before launching his own ad homs has already been noted. He is totally without even the rudiments of self-awareness. I am not wasting my time responding to him anymore though I may continue to comment on his stupidity.


Edit: Robert is on ignore. He's earned it.

 

[kookbreaker]

Obtaining Prints of Deceased Persons

You've posted that already. It is not the same as putting a print from a corpse onto an object (such as a rifle). It is merely the method for getting prints for identification. You are wrong. You don't even realize you are wrong.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yeah, well that's one possibility, but not necessary to make a forgery. All they had to do is get Oswald's palm print whether from his dead body

Which they cannot do to make the kind of print that was lifted from the rifle. It doesn't work that way.

or from some other source, and then say, Hey, we got this off the rifle. Of course, there was no evidence of any readable palm or finger print on the rifle.

Except for the evidence that they did.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well now it appears that you and your Amen chorus simply retreat into outright denials of the truth. You have yet to address even one of the several anomalies in those photos, and that speaks volumes.

Actually we already did. try paying attention. I posted a video of someone duplicating the shadow effect. I Ratant had even more details with his modeling. There is nothing to explain that has not already been explained.

Trouble is, you aren't listening. You are just repeating your debunked claims and thinking that is good enough.

 

[kookbreaker]

If you can't replicate a shadow, it's a problem.

Already done. Did you not see the video I showed? Why do you not accept that?
What is wrong with it?