JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

As you know, the Dallas police lifted the print from the rifle which means that you are, as you say

The Dallas Police lifted a palmprint from the rifle, not fingerprints. The palmprint was found under the wooden stock, and shows Oswald possessed and handled the weapon in its dismantled state.

However, the Dallas police also found fingerprints on the trigger guard. Those were photographed in the DPD lab shortly after the assassination and Detective J.C.Day was in the process of determining those were Oswald's when he was told to release all the evidence to the FBI. He stopped working on the fingerprints and the rifle, with other evidence, was turned over to the FBI.*

Those photographs of the fingerprints on the trigger guard are in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence.

Fast forward a few decades. Gary Savage is a Dallas native whose uncle Rusty Livingstone was a Dallas cop in 1963 and who has a first generation set of those photos. Savage has the prints examined by a noted fingerprint examiner, Vincent Scalise (Scalise was a member of the HSCA's forensic team in 1978 when they re-examined the JFK assassination).

Scalise examined those fingerprints shown in the photos taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and determined they were Lee Harvey Oswald's, to the exclusion of every other person on the planet.

The book is called FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. It is written by Gary Savage.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/1stDayEvidence.txt
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-First-Day-Evidence-Briefcase/dp/0963811657

______

*Day had found plenty of matches and no dissimilarities between the prints on the trigger guard and Oswald's prints.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/warren_report/JCDay.html

Mr. Day. Were taken, I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints.
...
Mr. Belin. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. Day. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. [note: first generation copies of these photos were studied by Scalise]
...
Mr. Belin.
Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. Day. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. Belin. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. Day. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. Belin. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. Day. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. Belin. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. Day. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. Belin. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. Day. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
...
Mr. McCloy. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's----
Mr. Day. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.
Mr. McCloy. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?
Mr. Day. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing.

 

[HSienzant]

And is utterly wrong. Unless you want to show where the emulsion marks are on the film. Feel free. Show me actual evidence. Lifton only ever falls back onto confirmation bias, the body must be altered, the film must be altered, etc, not because he can prove any of it, but because he needs it to be true for his stories to work.

Excellent point. Lifton does argue from the point that the body was altered (really, what choice does he have, that's his life's work), and assumes that is a given.

He then picks up from that point and argues that the film must have been altered, because it doesn't show the damage to the back of the head that he knows must have been there, because otherwise, it invalidates his entire life's work.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It's easy and there are numerous indications of Z film tempering, not the least of which are the on the scene witnesses who saw the blow-out in the back of the head and brains, hair and scalp flying in their faces, their uniforms and their follow up vehicles, the final conifirmation made by the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethdesda.
And then there is the Muchmore Film which shows the Limo red brake lights slowing and stopping the Limo which you don't see on the Z film.

Robert, you are changing your story.

Again.

Previously, you said you were unsure of any Z-film tampering, just claiming the film was subject to interpretation. Or it may have been unaltered, but if so, only showed a shot from the front. Or a vagina.

The Z film shows whatever your point of view wants it to show...

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it...

I see a shot from the front blowing out his head producing a predictable jet effect spray of blood, brain and tissue. You see only what you want to see. I also see Jackie turning around to the trunk to try to retrieve a chunk of the JFK's brain blown away from the back of his head. But it's all subject to interpretation...

The Z film is a rorschach test. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Perhaps it's a vagina.

Already answered that. The Z film is not the Best Evidence but if accurate, it clearly shows the head of the President blasted by a shot from the front.

Now you're certain the film has been tampered with. What has changed, except your need to have it be so?

The Muchmore film shows the red parade flashers, not the brake lights. This has been a non-issue for about four decades now.

Try to catch up.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How about the absence of physical evidence for LHO? How about the negative parafin test on Oswald's cheek, indicating no evidence he even fired a rifle...

Another claim with no substance that has been disproven since 1964.

Cortland Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission that the paraffin test had little value, as it yielded too many false positives as well as false negatives.

The Commission therefore discounted those results.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham3.htm

You really need to get up to speed here, and stop believing everything you read in conspiracy books. Really Robert, the resources are online. It's not like the early 1980's, when I spent about $3000 on a complete set of the Warren Commission volumes from the President's Box Bookshop so I could research this myself. You have the capability of checking this stuff out yourself, instead of just parroting lies from conspiracy books.

Why don't you try that approach for a change, since it's pretty clear the parroting technique isn't working out well for you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Rube Goldberian??? Nothing is more ridiculous than "simply" crashing Arr Force One.

The theories you put forth are Rube Goldbergian. They require a massive amount of money, time, and effort, when the same results could be accomplished more simply by simply shooting JFK with Oswald's rifle from the TSBD.

Instead, you claim the conspirators did all this:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

When all they had to do was this:
1. Use his weapon from his building, while telling him to wait on the second floor for a phone call.

A plane crash by a suicidal pilot would also work. No films to alter, no body to alter, no bullet to plant at Parkland, or bullet fragments to plant in the limo, no rifle to plant, etc. etc. Just shoot JFK with Oswald's rifle from the window.

Your theory by contrast is certainly Rube Goldbergian.

Oh, and let's not forget
11. Plant the wrong rifle and then substitute the right one later. You did argue initially that the original weapon found on the sixth floor was not Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano, but a Mauser.

 

[HSienzant]

Aah, but you are presuming the success in advance of the completion of the operation. You are also using circular reasoning, using the conclusion (the films were altered, the photos were altered, evidence was planted, etc.) to justify the premise (there was a conspiracy).

Let me be more clear -- you are saying the operation was successful, so of course it was a great plan. That only works in hindsight.

I am asking how the planners knew - when they planned it, in advance of the actual killing, and without the hindsight you are claiming you possess - how they knew it would be successful, and since they obviously weren't assured of it being successful, why would they plan the Rube Goldbergian plan you put forward, instead of the just far-more-simple plan of crashing the plane or exposing the President's affairs, most likely costing him the 1964 election.

Try to answer it this time without the benefit of the hindsight the planners obviously didn't possess, and without circular reasoning. Bet you can't.

Hank

Rube Goldberian??? Nothing is more ridiculous than "simply" crashing Arr Force One.

I challenged you to address the point of having to have hindsight to explain why the conspirators would choose the wacky way you suggest they whacked JFK, as the best you could do the first time was "How can you argue with success?"

I notice you avoided that point altogether.

I'll give you another shot.

Why would the conspirators choose to deploy their limited resources this way:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Plant the wrong rifle in the TSBD, and substitute the right one later.

Instead of simply exposing JFK's affairs, or crashing his plane, or any of any number of different scenarios that are better than the bizarre, convoluted Rube Goldbergian contraption you argue actually happened:

Did you come up with an answer yet?

 

[Robert Prey]

Another claim with no substance that has been disproven since 1964.

Cortland Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission that the paraffin test had little value, as it yielded too many false positives as well as false negatives.

The Commission therefore discounted those results.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham3.htm

You really need to get up to speed here, and stop believing everything you read in conspiracy books. Really Robert, the resources are online. It's not like the early 1980's, when I spent about $3000 on a complete set of the Warren Commission volumes from the President's Box Bookshop so I could research this myself. You have the capability of checking this stuff out yourself, instead of just parroting lies from conspiracy books.

Why don't you try that approach for a change, since it's pretty clear the parroting technique isn't working out well for you?

Hank

Nonsense. If the P test were positive, McAdams and the rest of you Lone Nutters would champion it as proof of guilt.

 

[Robert Prey]

I challenged you to address the point of having to have hindsight to explain why the conspirators would choose the wacky way you suggest they whacked JFK, as the best you could do the first time was "How can you argue with success?"

I notice you avoided that point altogether.

I'll give you another shot.

Why would the conspirators choose to deploy their limited resources this way:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Plant the wrong rifle in the TSBD, and substitute the right one later.

Instead of simply exposing JFK's affairs, or crashing his plane, or any of any number of different scenarios that are better than the bizarre, convoluted Rube Goldbergian contraption you argue actually happened:

Did you come up with an answer yet?

Ridiculous hypotheses. The Plan they implemented worked.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not sure what any of these cases have to do with the Oswald case, and in any event, your claims are total bunk.

Sorry, Robert. You can make all the unproven assertions you like but the end result is still the same. On the one hand we have your unproven assertions, on the other we have hard physical evidence like the rifle, the zapruder film, the bullet fragments found in the limo, the shells found at the window, etc.
Hmmm. Tough choice.

You need to put some veriafiable evidence on the table. Or maybe start using a bigger font to get your point across. Remember the adage, when the evidence is on your side, pound the facts. When the evidence is not on your side, pound the table.

Not.

[/url]

Nuff said.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now it's nuff said.

 

[Robert Prey]

Firstly, It's O'Toole.

Secondly, I established that claim is nonsense a while ago. Here's the post you never bothered to rebut:

"the CIA and FBI both use VSA at times, in their own investigations. The technology is currently recognized in 43 states. The biggest user of VSA technology in the USA is US law Enforcement agencies. Law Enforcement agencies in Israel, India, Malaysia, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Poland, Russia, use VSA alongside polygraph.
Many intelligence agencies as well as private forensic psychophysiologists worldwide utilise VSA in preference to polygraph technology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_stress_analysis

 

[jargon buster]

Robert , why didnt the CIA just suffocate him and shove a load of painkillers up his backside and make it look like death by misadventure?

 

[Robert Prey]

I challenged you to address the point of having to have hindsight to explain why the conspirators would choose the wacky way you suggest they whacked JFK, as the best you could do the first time was "How can you argue with success?"

I notice you avoided that point altogether.

I'll give you another shot.

Why would the conspirators choose to deploy their limited resources this way:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Plant the wrong rifle in the TSBD, and substitute the right one later.

Instead of simply exposing JFK's affairs, or crashing his plane, or any of any number of different scenarios that are better than the bizarre, convoluted Rube Goldbergian contraption you argue actually happened:

Did you come up with an answer yet?

The resources of CIA are not "limited." They are unlimited. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Muchmore film shows the red parade flashers, not the brake lights. This has been a non-issue for about four decades now.

Try to catch up.

Hank

Nonsense. Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis said the Limo slowed down, almost to a complete stop. Catch up to the truth.

 

[Robert Prey]

You're not aware a shot from the right front won't exit the right back of JFK's head, because the angles are wrong? Well, let me clue you in. A shot from the right front won't exit the right back of JFK's head, because the angles are wrong.

Try to make sense. I know it's not much of a case you're trying to defend, as the evidence is all against you, but try to make sense. Or just admit you cannot.

Your angles are contrived.

 

[LSSBB]

The resources of CIA are not "limited." They are unlimited. Obviously.

Not obviously. They are limited by time, money, and technological capability, like everyone else. Appeals to magic do not fly in critical discourse.

ETA: here is a great example of your "unlimited" CIA, circa the early 60s: The Bay of Pigs

 

[Robert Prey]

Aah, but you are presuming the success in advance of the completion of the operation. You are also using circular reasoning, using the conclusion (the films were altered, the photos were altered, evidence was planted, etc.) to justify the premise (there was a conspiracy).

Let me be more clear -- you are saying the operation was successful, so of course it was a great plan. That only works in hindsight.

I am asking how the planners knew - when they planned it, in advance of the actual killing, and without the hindsight you are claiming you possess - how they knew it would be successful, and since they obviously weren't assured of it being successful, why would they plan the Rube Goldbergian plan you put forward, instead of the just far-more-simple plan of crashing the plane or exposing the President's affairs, most likely costing him the 1964 election.

Try to answer it this time without the benefit of the hindsight the planners obviously didn't possess, and without circular reasoning. Bet you can't.

Hank

It was not a Rube Goldberg plan. It was a plan practiced and perfected in anticipation of assassinating Castro. A plan devised and executed by professionals.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Your angles are contrived.

Said the expert at contrivance.

 

[EventHorizon]

Nonsense. Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis said the Limo slowed down, almost to a complete stop. Catch up to the truth.

And that silly evidence gets in the way of your eyewitness testimony yet again.

Your angles are contrived.

Your entire "argument" is contrived.

It was not a Rube Goldberg plan. It was a plan practiced and perfected in anticipation of assassinating Castro. A plan devised and executed by professionals.

Professionals who conceived of and executed a plan so unbelievably convoluted they couldn't possibly expect to get away with it?

 

[Robert Prey]

lol.

Like always, you miss the point.
The 289 exonerations you cite are a miniscule percentage of the total prison population. The overwhelming majority of the prison population hasn't been found innocent, although most everyone in prison will tell you they are.

And besides, citing the 289 wrongful convictions doesn't do anything to establish that Oswald belongs in that group, and not the far larger "convicted and not exonerated" group. Not sure what you think you've established, but it's not Oswald's innocence with this citation.

Hell, Ted Bundy insisted on his innocence until the last few days until his execution. Then he tried to cut a deal - extend my time on earth and I'll confess so the families can get some closure.

The governor said no deal.

Explain to me how his case differs from Oswald's, except there is far more evidence that Oswald was guilty. Face it, most of the time, the system works and the guilty party gets convicted. But the guilty parties still claim innocence.

Hank

There is far more evidence of Oswald, the Patsy, than Oswald the Lone Nut assassin. In fact, there is no evidence that LHO even fired a single shot.

On another note, I see you have seen fit to duck my hypothetical question as to whether is would be smart or dumb for professionals to set up a Patsy, and then have him killed.