JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

More Event Horizon baloney:

Quote:
Why the material evidence conflicts with Roberts claims.
You have no material evidence. None.
A lie. There's a bullet, pieces of bullets, the rifle with palm prints etc..

There was no palm print and pieces of bullets is not evidence for one Lone Nutter. WE all know that there were bullets shot at the Pres. Get your facts straight.

 

[Robert Prey]

And Still More Event Horizon Baloney:

Quote:
Why the autopsy and related photogrpahs conflict with the claims.
There are no autopsy photographs.
A lie. They've been posted in this thread.

No. The only photos posted were pre-autopsy. As far as autopsy photos are concerned...

"A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

 

[kookbreaker]

Looks like Rouser has once again forgotten how to use the quote function.

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. I accuse him of being a liar.

So is he, or is he not responsible for tampering with evidence as part of your conspiracy? Andif not will you please name somebody who is this time.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Event Horizon's continued baloney:

"Clint Hill claimed there were two shots and they came from the book depository. That comes from a source that you yourself supplied."

But here is what he really said:

Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?

Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it,

So two shots. One definately from behind. One he isn't certain of, butoffers no alternate explanation. Your point is...?

 

[RoboTimbo]

There was no palm print and pieces of bullets is not evidence for one Lone Nutter.

Your homework is to read the WCR and report back where the information is about the palm print. Your uninformed arguments just end up as Stundie nominations.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Your homework is to read the WCR and report back where the information is about the palm print. Your uninformed arguments just end up as Stundie nominations.

Yes, they are. Saying somebody lied does not prove it so. It is why he argues against there being material evidence to tie LHO as the lone shooter instead of supplying evidence for a different narrative.

The photos are from the aautopsy, they are leaked from the autopsy report. Even if they are pre-autopsy (and if they could be tied to the nice story about not being the ones developed- we have no idea which photos are refered to in the quote) we still haveto face the fact that they support the LHO theory NOT the narrative RP claims.

Bullet fragments do of course prove the rifle used. In this case the one with LHOs palm print on it.

That Robert contradicts his own posts is utterly hilarious to me.

 

[EventHorizon]

Hypothetical question here (that has nothing to do with this thread, I swear): is it wrong or should one feel bad at attempting to illicit Stundie nominations from the mentally ill by continuing to address their insanity? I feel a bit like I'm picking at a scab. I mean one; one would feel like they were picking at a scab! Did I say 'I'm'? I meant one. Really.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I am only aware of one poster who claims mental illness, and I am only aware of one stundie nomination because I made it, and it was not because he was ill, it was a mistake any of us could have made (saying he doesn't want to be called mad, in a thread where he posted "am I mad" or simaler, in the title).

If you are engaging with them because they are happy to discuss differing views is one thing, to do it to get stundies is something else. People who post here are aware of the stundie nominations, and seem to take it all in good humour (or why post here?). If you think the person is unaware of the Stundies point them to the thread so they are not being gossiped about behind his back. I've always been bemused at how few stundies I cause.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your homework is to read the WCR and report back where the information is about the palm print. Your uninformed arguments just end up as Stundie nominations.

Your homework is to re-read the same. I'll help you.

"Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints. He stated that the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely"

"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "

"Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26,... The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card "

So Lataona could not find any print, nor any indication that a lift had been performed. But Leut. Day, 7 days later comes up with a palm print on a card -- but only after there had been a visit to the funeral home and LHO palm inked. Thus, all Latona asserted to the Commission was that the print on this card was of Oswald's palm. But if a print lift had been made, and the print still visible, then why could Latona not see it nor any indication of a lift? And why when pressed to make a sworn statement about it why did Leut. Day refuse?? The answer is clear to me. Leut. Day was afraid of swearing to something he knew was not true.

But let's say the print was there, and let's say the parafin test on LHO cheek was positive (which it wasn't) proving he had fired a rifle. And let's further say that LHO was clearly seen at the window firing the rifle (which he was not). All that would only prove is that Oswald was a shooter. It would not prove he was the Lone shooter, nor that there was no one else involved in the assassination plot. Nor would it negate all of the 30 or so Parkland witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. Nor shots from the grassy knoll witnessed by Powers, O'Donnell and Clint Hill.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It would not prove he was the Lone shooter, nor that there was no one else involved in the assassination plot. Nor would it negate all of the 30 or so Parkland witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. Nor shots from the grassy knoll witnessed by Powers, O'Donnell and Clint Hill.

No, the lack of evidence of a second shooter means we have no reason to assume there was one, meaning LHO is by definition a Lone Shooter.

What disproves the 30 (or 20 or 40) Parkland witnesses is the material evidence that disproves their statements:
The body
The Autopsy
The photographs
The Z film.

The fact there is no material evidence supporting any claim of a shot from the front disproves that a shot came from the front.

We only have evidence for shots coming from one direction. Thois shots are tied to a rifle that LHO owned, paid for, signed for, and held in photographs. His palm print was found on the rifle. If it wasn't? The fact it was his rifle in his place of work, where he was observed fleeing from to shoot one policeman and try to shoot a second is enough evidence.

So once again: What material evidence supports the Parkland statements?

 

[EventHorizon]

Your homework is to re-read the same. I'll help you.

"Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints. He stated that the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely"

"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "


"Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26,... The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card "


*useless speculation snipped*

Awesome. More dishonest quote mining.


After the first sentence you posted, the next paragraph goes on to say that Lieutenant Day had already lifted the palm print. In fact, the entirety of the second sentence that you quoted which is in that very paragraph is:

"The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print of the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed."

See how the meaning changes when you don't take something out of context. By dishonestly leaving out that sentence about the completeness of the print lifting you were of course implying that it was unusual that there were no traces of the lifting left. But we all see what you're doing here of course; at least by putting in the ellipsis it was easy to identify the quote mining.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So where is the material evidence supporting a shot from the front?

 

[kookbreaker]

I see that RP still doesn't understand how fingerprints work or how they are lifted - or what lifting does to the print.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

One thing I have never understood about the assassination is why JFK raised his arms in that manner after the second bullet.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, the lack of evidence of a second shooter means we have no reason to assume there was one, meaning LHO is by definition a Lone Shooter.

What disproves the 30 (or 20 or 40) Parkland witnesses is the material evidence that disproves their statements:
The body
The Autopsy
The photographs
The Z film.

The fact there is no material evidence supporting any claim of a shot from the front disproves that a shot came from the front.

We only have evidence for shots coming from one direction. Thois shots are tied to a rifle that LHO owned, paid for, signed for, and held in photographs. His palm print was found on the rifle. If it wasn't? The fact it was his rifle in his place of work, where he was observed fleeing from to shoot one policeman and try to shoot a second is enough evidence.

So once again: What material evidence supports the Parkland statements?

The only unimpeachable, un-alterable, un-forged "material" evidence we have are the observations of the Parkland Medical Personnel and other first hand witnesses. It is their unalterable, un-impeachable material evidence that impeaches what you claim to see or not see in the Z film.

 

[Robrob]

I see that RP still doesn't understand how fingerprints work or how they are lifted - or what lifting does to the print.

Let me guess, he doesn't know a print is a physical object and once lifted is no longer on the item in question?

 

[kookbreaker]

Let me guess, he doesn't know a print is a physical object and once lifted is no longer on the item in question?

Oh read the parts of this thread where he quoted articles about getting prints off dead bodies (for identification) and implied that technique could be used to 'plant' prints on the rifle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your homework is to re-read the same. I'll help you.

Let's hope that you simply failed to comprehend what the WCR was telling you and you weren't being deliberately dishonest.

Now, without you being deliberately dishonest, your homework is to read the WCR and report back here with what it really says about the palm print on Oswald's rifle.

Your poor feet can't take much more of your self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

 

[EventHorizon]

Let me guess, he doesn't know a print is a physical object and once lifted is no longer on the item in question?

He doesn't know how quite a few things work. It's rather comical.