• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
aggle-rithm said:
Your own source, a fingerprinting expert, said that because the rifle was in poor condition, it was difficult to leave a print on it. And that's with a LIVE person secreting sweat and oil, not a dead body.

Do you reject this source now?
Click to expand...

No. I'm happy to accept both arguments,namely, that there was no legible print of any kind until a palm print had been planted by the FBI.
 
Border Reiver said:
When the palm is attached to a live person excreting sweat and oils through the skin, or inks, etc have been applied to the skin allowing the friction ridges to leave an impression. Here's an overview.

Putting a dead man's palm on the rifle will not leave an impression as the skin is no longer sweating, etc and if Oswald's palm print was on the rifle in ink don't you think that might have been noticed?
Click to expand...

Yes. And it was noticed by Mortician Paul Groody:

"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."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
 
Robert Prey said:
Yes. And it was noticed by Mortician Paul Groody:

"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."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
Click to expand...

This is some sort of performance art or something, isn't it?

They are talking about fingerprinting Oswald there.
That quote has nothing to do with the nature of the palm print on the rifle.
Are you seriously using that to imply that the palm print on the rifle is in ink??
 
Robert Prey said:
Yes. And it was noticed by Mortician Paul Groody:

"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."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
Click to expand...

Now show that the print on the rifle was in ink and you might have a point. Since the print was not in ink, your quote is of less use than a chastity belt in a brothel.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I'm happy to accept both arguments,namely, that there was no legible print of any kind until a palm print had been planted by the FBI.
Click to expand...

So how do you reconcile that a palm print was planted on to a surface that apparently would not hold legible prints from a body no longer able to leave any form of latent print?
 
Robert Prey said:
I'd be happy to read it and comment on it, but I do not hop down somebody's
cyber trail until the poster first makes a point. That way I don't have to try to figure out the point first before responding to it. If you have a point, then what is it?
Click to expand...

Well, Robert, it's an article talking about the prints that were on Oswald's rifle that were photographed on the day of the assassination.

I'll even provide a quote.

Rusty has copies of five photographs taken by Lieutenant Day made directly from the original Dallas police negatives which show latent fingerprints found on the trigger housing of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository. The fingerprints are visible to the naked eye even before enhancement.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Yes. And it was noticed by Mortician Paul Groody:

"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."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
Click to expand...

Yes.

Prints were obtained for a comparisson.

Why would ink that proves fingerprinting be used to transfer a latent palmprint to a rifle?

You do not seem to be able to differentiate between forms and uses of fingerprints. If you think there is any viable method of a powder medium print like that obtained from the rifle might somehow be proven by ink then all you are proving is how little you understand this subject.
 
Tolls said:
This is some sort of performance art or something, isn't it?

They are talking about fingerprinting Oswald there.
That quote has nothing to do with the nature of the palm print on the rifle.
Are you seriously using that to imply that the palm print on the rifle is was in ink??
Click to expand...

Corrected for accuracy. There was a palm print on the rifle. There is no longer a palm print on the rifle. It was lifted away in a powder medium.

This also seems to be part of the basic understanding that alludes Robert. He is claiming it is suspicious that there was a print when Police technicians inspected the rifle that were not there when the FBI looked at it.

Had Robert any understanding of the subject of fingerprinting he would know that if there was a print on the rifle detected through powder by the Police, the only way to preserve it would be to lift the print. It is physically removed from the rifle, not copied from it.

Ergo there COULD NOT be a print when the FBI saw it if the Police had already lifted it.
 
Here's your original post where you showed that pic. You've since deleted the picture from dropbox.
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
What an interested web sight you've stumbled onto:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/backheadblood.jpg
So, Robert the lying liar, I accept your admission that you are a liar.

LOL.

Bang bang! Your poor feet!
Click to expand...

Robert, you really need to admit your lies on this.
You have zero credibility as it is, we dont need to descend into the minus.
 
Robert Prey said:
Only if the questions keep repeating from low information posters...
Click to expand...

No, Robert. Insulting your critics isn't an excuse for a fringe reset.

The holes in your theory from page 10 are still holes in your theory. Back then you were unable to deal with the evidence in the form of lifted prints, and you're still unable. Repeating the same debunked nonsense -- and it was debunked -- doesn't fix the broken argument.

Back then you were trying to handwave the notion that different forms of obtaining prints from human hands and fingers would somehow equate to evidence that would pass for lifted latent prints from other objects. And when you were roundly lambasted in November 2011 for this claim, you tried to say everyone else was "confused" and then you dropped the subject.

No, Robert, we are not some "low information sheeple" that you can bluster your way around. We know how print evidence works. You do not. And it's obvious that you do not. You're simply attempting the same nonsensical equation you used more than a year ago and hoping it fares better this time around.

Therefore my rebuttal stands: asked and answered in November 2011.
 
Tolls said:
This is some sort of performance art or something, isn't it?
Click to expand...

The difference between trolling and raw cluelessness is often cloudy, and several people here have expressed opinions on which description best fits Robert.

They are talking about fingerprinting Oswald there.
That quote has nothing to do with the nature of the palm print on the rifle.
Are you seriously using that to imply that the palm print on the rifle is in ink??
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the problem Robert ran into back in November 2011 when he tried this same line of reasoning for the first time. His critics laughed at him for trying to conflate two entirely dissimilar kinds of fingerprinting and fingerprint evidence. He tried to save face by dropping the subject and accusing all his critics of being "confused," although it was painfully obvious back then which argument stemmed from confusion.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I'm happy to accept both arguments,namely, that there was no legible print of any kind until a palm print had been planted by the FBI.
Click to expand...

You're happy to accept two mutually exclusive arguments?

I'm not surprised that you're doing this, as I've seen many conspiracy theorists do the same. You're the first one I've seen openly admit it, though.
 
Straw Man said:
Well, Robert, it's an article talking about the prints that were on Oswald's rifle that were photographed on the day of the assassination.

I'll even provide a quote.
Click to expand...

I still don't get your point. Yes, the prints were taken, but no, they could not be identified which your own source explains:

"Latona could not make a positive identification since the fingerprints were extremely faint following the removal of the protective tape."

Moreover, your source claims that prints were made at the funeral home both inked from Oswald's palm and non-inked.

"Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue."

So I just don't know how Jay and Tom Tom can have any technical argument, which your source has just negated.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Corrected for accuracy. There was a palm print on the rifle. There is no longer a palm print on the rifle. It was lifted away in a powder medium.

This also seems to be part of the basic understanding that alludes Robert. He is claiming it is suspicious that there was a print when Police technicians inspected the rifle that were not there when the FBI looked at it.

Had Robert any understanding of the subject of fingerprinting he would know that if there was a print on the rifle detected through powder by the Police, the only way to preserve it would be to lift the print. It is physically removed from the rifle, not copied from it.

Ergo there COULD NOT be a print when the FBI saw it if the Police had already lifted it.
Click to expand...

There was no powdered evidence that a palm print had even been taken.

"On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 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.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that 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."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#palmprint
 
Robert Prey said:
There was no powdered evidence that a palm print had even been taken.

"On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 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.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that 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."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#palmprint
Click to expand...

Please state what indication you think would be left.

Adhesive material lifts the print and powder medium. What trace is left?

Here is an experiment. Take a book and put it on a clean shelf. Now lift the book off.
What trace of the book is left on the shelf?
Does that mean the book no longer exists?
 
Robert Prey said:
There was no powdered evidence that a palm print had even been taken.

"On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 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.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that 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."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#palmprint
Click to expand...

Maybe you shouldn't include a link when you cherry-pick. It's too easy for one of us to go there and get the sentences immediately following this:

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, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI.55 The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom