JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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.

I think this proves you do not know what your quotes refer to. What do you think inked and inkless cards are?
How does this have any baring on producing a LATENT print?

Can you think of a simple reason why inked and noninked cards might both be used for IDENTIFICATION prints?

 

[JayUtah]

Not a "fact" but a conclusion unsupported by any facts.

Then what are your authors so frantically trying to explain away? You do nothing but try to undermine mainstream belief. If there are "no facts" to support it, why all the effort? And no, "You're all brainwashed" is not an acceptable answer.

Anyone can state a conclusion

You can't. Or rather, you won't.

If the statement is made that the preponderance of available evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald above any other individual as the likely assassin, your immediate knee-jerk reaction is simply to accuse that person of trusting authority. When you are asked then toward what other individual the preponderance of evidence more credibly points, all you can do is recite stuff you've cribbed from conspiracy books and videos that don't identify any such person but simply try to erode and nit-pick away at the prevailing view.

How are we to avoid concluding from such an exercise that the goal of these books and videos, and their readers/viewers, is not to find Kennedy's killer but rather simply to justify, in pseudo-intellectual fashion, some need to ridicule the mainstream? A book or video that can't give me a better explanation for the crime, but simply tells me how misguided the mainstream must be, holds little interest to me -- not because I cling to the mainstream but because I cling to the principles of rigorous investigation.

See how easy it is to be a low information poster? Such persons have no need of "facts."

A straw man plus an insult. You're certainly on a roll today, Robert. You may do your best to evade any sort of meaningful burden of proof, but in the final analysis all you can provide is a bunch of copypasted handwaving that sheds no better light on the tragedy. The smugness with which you foist it doesn't make it any more believable.

 

[Straw Man]

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.

Your assertion that there was no palm print until the FBI has taken the rifle away is incorrect. As it states in the article:

The lift of the palm print from the rifle by Lieutenant Day has sparked controversy over the years due to what has been labeled an "interrupted chain of evidence." This misunderstanding developed from the FBI's intrusion into the Dallas police investigation on the night of the assassination. The rifle was taken away from Lieutenant Day by the FBI before he had completed his analysis of it. At that time, the FBI did not receive the palm print just developed by Lieutenant Day. The print evidence stayed in the Crime Lab Office, and only the rifle was taken by FBI Agent Drain.

And of course:

Latona could not make a positive identification since the fingerprints were extremely faint following the removal of the protective tape. Lieutenant Day's trigger-housing photographs (which Rusty has first generation copies of), made in the Dallas Crime Lab Office, were the best quality photographs made of the fingerprints found on the side of the trigger housing. The Dallas Crime Lab received the rifle back from the FBI in a pasteboard box. It remained unopened in the evidence room along with other physical evidence in the case. After a few days passed, orders came to release all of the physical evidence to the FBI. That is when the palm print was released for the first time to the FBI.

 

[JayUtah]

Please state what indication you think would be left.

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

I've actually done this myself. Not only does the adhesive remove the latent print and the powder that has adhered to it -- all of it -- but it also removes various items from the surface that were incidentally also there. "Lifting" a print leaves a completely clean surface behind.

 

[JayUtah]

Admit a lie? Glad to. Name one:

(Crickets Chirping)

No crickets here, Robert. We named three of your most recent ones a couple pages back. You ignored it. Not only did you ignore them and our requests for reconciliation, you had the audacity to repeat your request to provide examples of your dishonesty!

I suppose chirping crickets have supplanted lunch meat as your preferred dodge, but no matter how you dodge the evidence it's just silly to suppose you haven't been caught lying in this thread and that the evidence of such lies has not been posted right here in the thread.

 

[JayUtah]

"Simple" Sheeple wrap their heads around anything some figure or agency of authority tells them.

You keep trying to shoehorn your critics into this "sheeple" mold. You need an approach that doesn't rely so heavily on straw-manning your critics and their arguments. In other words, you need to actually address the arguments on the table, not the caricature versions of them your conspiracy authors have prepared you to expect and which are the only ones they address in their books and videos.

You have been challenged several times to show where I have expressed any belief simply because some "authority figure" tells me to do so. Naturally you have refused to take the challenge, probably because no one here has done that -- least of all me. You simply infer that any who dispute your claims on whatever grounds "must" be in the grip of some brainwashing line of official government disinformation. Except in my case: if I display any sort of innate or personal knowledge or skill, you try to shame me as a "professor" or an "academic" -- labels that are inaccurate in my case, and which you seem to wield as epithets rather than honorifics. As I said, you need to find an approach that doesn't rely on shaming or ridiculing your critics.

You, on the other hand, seem to be doing very little but citing "authority figures" such as Marrs, White, Wilson, Fetzer, and Law. The latter's argument you've borrowed wholesale and reproduced here as it if it were some magnum opus on your part. This was far more apparent back on page 10-15 when you sprinkled those names liberally throughout your arguments, apparently hoping this would lend scholarly weight to your claims. Now, although you still use their arguments and reproduce their claims, you seem to distance yourself from the source of your beliefs. A rhetorically wise move when you are projectively trying to accuse your critics of the mindless copying you yourself have done, but no better a means of supporting your own affirmative claims.

 

[vtbub]

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

As Jay has said, his sincerity has been debated,

While I admire Jay, Tom and Henry's effort to rebut very bit of cherry-picked nonsense the last nearly two years, I've come to the conclusion that Robert is a very clumsy con and really does not believe, or is at least agnostic to, what he writes.

When pressed to actually give a theory--any theory--he ducks it along with any version of the events of that day. In many ways, his argument has actually regressed since the start.

There are people on these forums who genuinely believe what they write, but, like Anders, Robert in my opinion is not one.

 

[jargon buster]

While I admire Jay, Tom and Henry's effort to rebut very bit of cherry-picked nonsense the last nearly two years, I've come to the conclusion that Robert is a very clumsy con and really does not believe, or is at least agnostic to, what he writes.

When pressed to actually give a theory--any theory--he ducks it along with any version of the events of that day. In many ways, his argument has actually regressed since the start.

There are people on these forums who genuinely believe what they write, but, like Anders, Robert in my opinion is not one.

His most recent lie and deleting of the photograph he posted should put the last nail in his coffin, I fear that others will still engage/encourage him though.

 

[swright777]

Admit a lie? Glad to. Name one:

(Crickets Chirping)

If you read the part where I wrote

It's kinda funny that RP posts a pic of Pinocchio right underneath his own lies.

you should get an idea where some of them are.

 

[Robert Prey]

I've actually done this myself. Not only does the adhesive remove the latent print and the powder that has adhered to it -- all of it -- but it also removes various items from the surface that were incidentally also there. "Lifting" a print leaves a completely clean surface behind.

Why don't you guys get your conflicting stories straight. Either there is, or may be evidence of a lift or there is not.

 

[Robert Prey]

As Jay has said, his sincerity has been debated,

While I admire Jay, Tom and Henry's effort to rebut very bit of cherry-picked nonsense the last nearly two years, I've come to the conclusion that Robert is a very clumsy con and really does not believe, or is at least agnostic to, what he writes.

When pressed to actually give a theory--any theory--he ducks it along with any version of the events of that day. In many ways, his argument has actually regressed since the start.

There are people on these forums who genuinely believe what they write, but, like Anders, Robert in my opinion is not one.

Theories are one thing, facts are another. I've presented both, but prefer to stick to facts and what those facts rationally lead to -- whether one Lone Nut, or a conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

You keep trying to shoehorn your critics into this "sheeple" mold. You need an approach that doesn't rely so heavily on straw-manning your critics and their arguments. In other words, you need to actually address the arguments on the table, not the caricature versions of them your conspiracy authors have prepared you to expect and which are the only ones they address in their books and videos.

You have been challenged several times to show where I have expressed any belief simply because some "authority figure" tells me to do so. Naturally you have refused to take the challenge, probably because no one here has done that -- least of all me. You simply infer that any who dispute your claims on whatever grounds "must" be in the grip of some brainwashing line of official government disinformation. Except in my case: if I display any sort of innate or personal knowledge or skill, you try to shame me as a "professor" or an "academic" -- labels that are inaccurate in my case, and which you seem to wield as epithets rather than honorifics. As I said, you need to find an approach that doesn't rely on shaming or ridiculing your critics.

You, on the other hand, seem to be doing very little but citing "authority figures" such as Marrs, White, Wilson, Fetzer, and Law. The latter's argument you've borrowed wholesale and reproduced here as it if it were some magnum opus on your part. This was far more apparent back on page 10-15 when you sprinkled those names liberally throughout your arguments, apparently hoping this would lend scholarly weight to your claims. Now, although you still use their arguments and reproduce their claims, you seem to distance yourself from the source of your beliefs. A rhetorically wise move when you are projectively trying to accuse your critics of the mindless copying you yourself have done, but no better a means of supporting your own affirmative claims.

False. Authors are not authority figures, they are only messengers of the evidence. Are the gurus of the LN crowd "Authority Figures"??? McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi???

 

[Robert Prey]

No crickets here, Robert. We named three of your most recent ones a couple pages back. You ignored it. Not only did you ignore them and our requests for reconciliation, you had the audacity to repeat your request to provide examples of your dishonesty!

I suppose chirping crickets have supplanted lunch meat as your preferred dodge, but no matter how you dodge the evidence it's just silly to suppose you haven't been caught lying in this thread and that the evidence of such lies has not been posted right here in the thread.

Three lies? No. Not one. A ridiculous picture that someone immature person photo-shopped which was not my creation. No "lies". Not one.

 

[JayUtah]

Why don't you guys get your conflicting stories straight. Either there is, or may be evidence of a lift or there is not.

No, Robert. "You're all confused" didn't work back in November 2011 and it won't work now. When you get your claim straight, then you can talk.

 

[JayUtah]

Three lies? No. Not one. A ridiculous picture that someone immature person photo-shopped which was not my creation. No "lies". Not one.

What are you blabbering about now? You asked for examples of your lies. I suggest you first deal with the ones posted several days ago, which you ignored at the time. Please try to keep up.

 

[Robert Prey]

Evidence Fraud

JFK Evidence Fraud
Committed by the Man Who Pardoned Nixon​

A single bullet hitting Kennedy in the back, coming out the throat, hitting Connally in the back, exiting his chest, slaming into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, piercing his right thigh and then discovered relatively pristine on a stretcher at Parkland -- the single bullet theory is the lynchpin of the government's case of a one lone nut shooter. If the theory is false, the theory is in a shambles and the only rational conclusion is more than one shooter and a conspiracy.

"Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford was one of the key people responsible for misleading the U.S. public about the facts of the JFK assassination. The single bullet theory and the lone assassin fiction are only possible if we believe Gerald Ford's terrible fiction."

"As a member of the Warren Commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford, then a Michigan congressman, suggested that the panel change its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back to place it higher up in his body."

Though both statements are inconsistent wtih the autopsy report, the Ford edit places the wound even further upwards in order to make the throat exit wound the more plausible.

"The initial draft of the report stated: A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine
Ford changed it t to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."


-- Thus, creating the possibility of a single bullet going from Kennedy to Connally and a plausible 2 shots plus one miss from one "Lone Nut."
X-ray Technician Jerrol Custer claims a large fragment popped out of the back wound when the body was sat up. Both Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck probed the wound's downward path leading to a dead end.

"The papers showing Ford's editing were made public... by the Assassination Records Review Board...The documents are part of the personal files of the late J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's general counsel."

Pictured: Ford's Fraudulent Edit:

Pictured: Drawing of fictional bullet entry: Rydberg Drawing

Pictured: Drawing of where bullet entered at 3rd thoracic Vertebra in the back as confirmed by JFK Physician Dr. George Burkley.

"The death certificate, signed by the President's personal physician Dr. George Burkley, then a Rear Admiral in the Medical Corps of the U.S. Navy gave a location for the back wound ... about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Supporting the location of Dr. Burkley is a diagram from the autopsy report of Kennedy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy


http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

It is also noteworthy that the Dale Myers video makes no precise mention of where that bullet entered the back other than the WC false statement created by Gerald Ford. Without that fictional account of the wound, Myers' "precise" geometric analysis of a plausible single bullet fails as a contrived attempt to validate the Warren Commission's pre-conceived Lone Nutter script.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

 

[JayUtah]

False. Authors are not authority figures, they are only messengers of the evidence. Are the gurus of the LN crowd "Authority Figures"??? McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi???

Do I really need to point out the obvious double standard here?

Also, link to any post of mine where I quote any of the "gurus" you mention or rely on their findings. Go on, I dare you. You can't do it, can you?

 

[JayUtah]

If the theory is false, the theory is in a shambles...

Straw man.

...and the only rational conclusion is more than one shooter and a conspiracy.

Affirmative claim disguised as null hypothesis.

The single bullet theory and the lone assassin fiction are only possible if we believe Gerald Ford's terrible fiction....

Straw man.

Though both statements are inconsistent wtih the autopsy report, the Ford edit places the wound even further upwards in order to make the throat exit wound the more plausible.

Cherry pick.

X-ray Technician Jerrol Custer claims a large fragment popped out of the back wound when the body was sat up. Both Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck probed the wound's downward path leading to a dead end.

Asked and answered.

Pictured: Drawing of fictional bullet entry: Rydberg Drawing

Straw man.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

What was that you said about simply parotting external sources as authority figures?

It is also noteworthy that the Dale Myers video...

Straw man.

Are you finished wasting our time now? Your claim is factually and logically flawed in the manner I've outlined above.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A ridiculous picture that someone immature person photo-shopped which was not my creation.

You're right, a person such as you describe did, right in this post:

What an interested web sight you've stumbled onto:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/backheadblood.jpg

and then lied about it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why don't you guys get your conflicting stories straight. Either there is, or may be evidence of a lift or there is not.

Is there any reason to assume that everybody who disagrees with Robert must agree on all issues?

Nobody has said that there would be a trace of lifting on the rifle.
There are obvious traces of the rifle on the lifts.
How would latent prints be placed on the rifle from a dead hand?
What are inkless cards?
Why should we ignore the more reasonable uses for taking identification prints and assume they are more likely used to plant latent prints through some ill defined magic?

How about you get your own conflicting story straight Robert?