JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[Tomtomkent]

The x-rays, autopsy reports, and multiple computer simulations all point to the President being struck from behind by two shots. Marina Oswald took three photographs of her husband with both murder weapons in plain view. This case is open and shut. Oswald was a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.

More than that:
All three shells were found with Oswalds gun. Both recovered bullets were from his gun. A gun he used for another attempted murder. The photographs are not only genuine, signed copies were given out to at least one person who was able to produce it.
More recently we have seen stabilised footage from a home movie of the day (yep the Zapruda film was not the only one) that clearly shows Oswald in the TSBD window with his rifle, exactly how at least one witness described him.

Oswald remains the only person for whom we have any evidence of firing any bullets at JFK that day.

If there was a conspiracy it was not a second shooter. The only form it could take, in utter contrast to any Wallace theory, was that somebody manipulated LHO (as a clearly disturbed individual who had some small brushes with popular media before, having been on TV and featured in a book) into making the kind of decision he fantasised about (and had already tried).
Even if we accept this speculation, and assume maybe one of the Cuban groups he was trying to impress convinced him, using the exact same methods that religious or political extremists use to recruit disenfranchised young men today, we have to admit it is speculation. Not a theory. It is not based upon any testable evidence.

It is a world away from Mac Wallace breaking from his usual MO to intricately frame a dupe while he, Factor, and whomever else went to the TSBD (with nobody seeing them) on the same day LHO bought his curtain poles to work (for no reason) to shoot the president, with bullets that somehow came from a gun LHO was seen (and can be seen) holding on his own.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So. To summarise:

Forgive me for barging in, I was never one for formal introductions.Firstly, fingerprints (being made of grease) do not survive long on cardboard before being absorbed. So whoever it was who suggested that the prints could have arisen at any course during the box's handling was off-beam. The fingerprint was created quite soon before being lifted.

Which makes it less likely to be during or before the shooting.

Secondly, the 'debunking' link that was provided by the nonspiracist camp (can't reproduce here due to n00b posting restrictions) is very far removed indeed from being the crushing final blow that the provider appeared to think it was.

But was more than enough to show the conclusions reached were invalid. The fingerprint is not and was not a confirmed ID.

a) The 'debunking' fingerprinter chides Darby for using photocopied fingerprints. Well, lacking access to the original, he had nothing else to work with. Not ideal, but there we go. The irony of that same debunker basing his argument on a digital reproduction (of unknown resolution) of that self-same photocopy is not, I hope, lost on anyone. [/ quote]

And what exactly is ironic about pointing out that the photocopy was not of a high enough standard to reach a positive ID?

Nothing. He looked at it. He was unable to declare a match in no small part BECAUSE of the quality of the danged photocopy.

b) Fingerprinting is more akin to an art than an exact science, and if two fingerprint experts disagree, then all one can say is that the original ID has not been verified. That doesn't invalidate the original ID, it just fails to confirm it. Another expert might validate the first ID.

So we should not accept it as fact as it is an art and ergo entirely subjective? This completely undermines your own theory!
But offering undue benefit of the doubt: If the ID has not been validated, and can be shown invalid, it is invalid. BTW I disagree with you, fingerprinting is indeed a science. Part of that science involves recognising the limitations of methodology or degraded evidence. The initial ID has not been validated, ergo those better placed to confirm the ID than the initial enquiry were unable to confirm it.

This alone should be enough to debunk.

c) The 'debunking' expert gives two examples of supposed discrepancies, and implies he could list many more, without doing so. I doubt that such casual failure to provide total evidence would be accepted were it from a conspiracist source.

There are indeed more examples of issues I have listed in a post elsewhere. But never mind poppickers, here are the pick of the pops:
1) From an unclear source.
2) Comparison prints having been obtained after an injury, and undue allowances made to compensate for this in the "match" assuming information not on record.
3) No account made for pressure distortions.
4) Quantity of apparent match points placed of quality of match points.

d) And most damningly, the fingerprint expert fails to uphold the FBI's own methodology for fingerprint matching, which is that three (or more) discrepancies do not constitute a negative result in the given presence of the required number of matching points. The 'debunker''s task, therefore, is to disprove the 14 existing points of correlation, not find other points that don't match, for which there could be any number of reasons. Thus rendering his current effort irrelevant. (If you doubt the FBI's approach, google <FBI "fingerprints do not lie"> the quoted phrase being the title of their position document; again, can't provide a link yet).

So lets be clear. There are more than methodology, and have been evolving techniques over the decades. Also, shall we remind ourselves of the conclusion made by the FBI crime lab using the methodology discussed here?

No Match.

Uh oh....

In any event, Darby revisited the 'Wallace print' after his affidavit, re-examined it and arrived at a 36-point match.

With the same issues above unaddressed. Not so much a killer app.

All that said, as far as I am aware the Wallace print ID has yet to be confirmed by another expert, which (to my mind at least) makes doing so the priority task for researchers.

And here we have the killer app for your critics.

One expert making an outlaying statement is par for the course in science. Shame then that those who have tried to make the confirmation you need did not. In your own words: None.

So ends the critique.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's all about perspective. From the other guy's point of view: "Yeah, I raised a whole bunch of issues and those dunderheads at JREF couldn't answer a single one of them. All they did was complain that I was being so thorough."

The motto of conspiracism is that every man's a hero in his own eyes.

It does seem so strange that so few CT advocates are interested in convincing sceptics of their theory.

They claim to wand to discuss, to review, to tell us why we are wrong, or to show the official story to be flawed. Few will listen to responses and build upon them in a way to convince people of their theory. It may seem like nitpicking, but why else have the discussion?

After all I can't think of many regular sceptics in this thread, or even forum, who would feel the need to tell people "This is what happened" and not be open to having their opinion changed based on their principles.

Or even to concede more than one possibility based upon evidence.

 

[supposenot]

Before I re-enter the fray, I would like to apologise to JayUtah for attacking him on a personal basis last night. I did not fully appreciate at the time that I had done so.

My explanation for my misconduct is that I was tired and cranky (it was gone midnight here and I had had four hours' sleep out of the previous 36), and in the heat of the argument (and, I would argue, some serious provocation) I completely forgot to abide by the forum rules, and strayed beyond the fuzzy "no-man's-land" area between addressing the argument and addressing the arguer, and well into the domain of the latter.

The relevant exchange has been removed by the mods and I have received a warning (two warnings, no less), so I am duly chastised.

However, although I hope for your forgiveness, I realise that the above is no proper excuse. I should have stepped away from the keyboard and gone to bed. Easier said than done, sometimes.

So, to be quite clear: JayUtah, I hereby apologise sincerely and unreservedly for insulting you.

That having been said, and without in any way qualifying that apology, I think it is sensible from now on if I don't react to the content of your posts at all, unless either of the following situations prevails:

a) You raise a substantive point that directly addresses a subject I have myself raised. If this occurs I will be glad to address it to the best of my abilities. Obviously, the definition of 'substantive' is somewhat subjective, so now and again you may find that I completely ignore what you consider to be valid points. Apologies in advance.

b) You launch another attack on my character, in which case I will report it. Your remarks to me have frequently fallen into the grey area between addressing the argument and addressing the poster (summarisable as general accusations of bad faith, including such unevidenced specifics as "lying", "deceit", "foul play", etc etc) and in my opinion cross well into the latter territory. I have let them pass so far but now (given that someone (whom I suspect to be you) has apparently resorted to reporting my posts) I am content to let the mods decide how to deal with such behaviour, if they see fit. I have no reason to doubt their impartiality, so that will be the end of the matter unless the situation escalates unexpectedly, in which case I will consider my position.

And so this marks the point a fresh start (and quite possibly an end point) vis a vis ourselves. We'll see how we go from here.

Now, where was I?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Now, where was I?

Any of the following would be a good place to start:
1) Explain how your chosen witness testimonies validate your claims, given they are contradicted both by established evidence and apparently by each other. Especially explain why they are valid at all as evidence Mac Wallace was present given the fist you named, Factor, is impossible to validate given the evidence.
2) Provide new evidence to validate the identification of the print given so far you have to explain, or even confront any of the problems with the identification yet still classify it as solid evidence.
3) Offer ANY kind of theory about the events of the day that YOU think better fits ALL evidence.

You may wish to avoid strawman attacks, trying to mischaracterise posters here, or imagining caveats that have not been placed on you -such as the apparent need to have no loose ends.

 

[supposenot]

Which makes it less likely to be during or before the shooting.

How so? Show your working.

if you are arguing that Wallace arrived at the crime scene after Oswald had lef but before the police identified the "sniper's nest" area, that in itself would be suspicious. Why would Wallace be privy to the location of the sniper?

You are also dealing with quite a small time frame, after the assassination, after Oswald had apparently fled and before the police arrived on the scene. I can't remember offhand how long this "window" lasted, but I think I recall that it was in the order of 30 minutes or so.

Even if it was as much as one whole hour, or even two at a stretch, there is clearly a substantially longer window of opportunity between 9am that morning (when the TSBD opened for business) at the assassination at 12.30pm that same day. I'd argue that this suggests (but does not prove) a greater probability of him being there prior to the assassination.

That said, I'm willing to consider Wallace being there after the assassination, if you can provide a persuasive time-frame and an innocent reason for him being there. Even if these two are somewhat hypothetical.

But was more than enough to show the conclusions reached were invalid. The fingerprint is not and was not a confirmed ID.

Well, (a) you're wrong because it has in fact been "seconded" and (b) you're wrong because lack of confirmation does not actively negate the original identification.

I don't mean this condescendingly, but I don't think you understand how fingerprinting works.

And what exactly is ironic about pointing out that the photocopy was not of a high enough standard to reach a positive ID?

Because the would-be debunker relied on a second generation copy (digital, unknown resolution) of that same photocopy to make his own deductions.

Without explaining how it was apparently fit for one task and yet not for the other.

Nothing. He looked at it. He was unable to declare a match in no small part BECAUSE of the quality of the danged photocopy.

No, you are completely misrepresenting the would-be debunker's stated position. I presume this is through a lack of attention, rather than deliberately.

He claimed to be able to identify (on this substandard photocopy) specific features that ruled out the Darby ID.

Read it again if you don't believe what I am saying.

So we should not accept it as fact as it is an art and ergo entirely subjective? This completely undermines your own theory!

That's not what I am saying at all. The photocopy is clearly not ideal, but I am willing to accept Darby's identification.

As I say, I pointed out the would-be debunker's apparent self-contradiction as an "irony" (no more than that). Observing this irony is not the sole foundation, or even the chief foundation, or even any kind of foundation of my argument against the would-be debunker.

But offering undue benefit of the doubt: If the ID has not been validated, and can be shown invalid, it is invalid.

No, again you fail to understand how fingerprint ID works.

And anyway, it has been confirmed. The fact that one alleged expert does not see a match does not negate the original ID that Darby made. Moreover, as I have proven, his argument is irrelevant.

BTW I disagree with you, fingerprinting is indeed a science. Part of that science involves recognising the limitations of methodology or degraded evidence.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. But the notion that fingerprints are unique to each individual bearer is not practically falsifiable, which tends to suggest that I am right and you are wrong.

The initial ID has not been validated, ergo those better placed to confirm the ID than the initial enquiry were unable to confirm it.

Again, one party's failure to see a match does not negate the original ID (this is another indication that printing is not an exact science btw).

The original ID has to be actively disproven to provide that. And since we don't have access to the FBI's analysis (we only have their word that it didn't match) we (both you and I or anyone else) are unable to objectively assess their conclusion.

I believe the FBI's conclusion to be probably erroneous, although I do not necessarily believe that to be due to any conscious conspiratorial activity or motivation (although it's just about possible).

This alone should be enough to debunk.

No.

There are indeed more examples of issues I have listed in a post elsewhere. But never mind poppickers, here are the pick of the pops:
1) From an unclear source.

Not ideal, but apparently of sufficient clarity to dismiss the identification, an apparent self-contradiction that (while not in itself fatal to the debunker) you have not addressed.

2) Comparison prints having been obtained after an injury, and undue allowances made to compensate for this in the "match" assuming information not on record.

That's no part of my argument, and it was no part of Darby's.

You appear to be regurgitating a point you have made to someone else who did in fact suggest injury as a reason for discrepancy. Or perhaps not, please explain why you raise this issue.

3) No account made for pressure distortions.

Fingerprinting always allows for pressure distortions. That's why a match requires a set number of loci, rather than a photographic overlay.

And by the same token, the would-be debunker has failed to allow for distortions. This is one aspect of a totally fatal error. See below.

4) Quantity of apparent match points placed of quality of match points.

I suspect there is a typo in the above (did you really mean "of"?). Could you please clarify the meaning of this sentence? Not that it matters, ultimately.

So lets be clear. There are more than methodology, and have been evolving techniques over the decades.

The FBI's position on the validation of a print match was the same before the assassination, during it, and has been ever since. It does not support the would-be debunker, and in fact it actually proves him incompetent.

Also, shall we remind ourselves of the conclusion made by the FBI crime lab using the methodology discussed here?

As I have already pointed out to you, failure to provide confirmation does not actively negate the original ID.

No Match.

No problem.

With the same issues above unaddressed. Not so much a killer app.

I have addressed your issues and your argument falls in most respects. Where it does not fall, it is not sufficiently strong (or anywhere near being so) to overcome Darby's ID.

One expert making an outlaying statement is par for the course in science. Shame then that those who have tried to make the confirmation you need did not. In your own words: None.

I will repeat. The lack of confirmation does not disprove the original ID. These are two totally separate issues, which I infer you do not understand.

So ends the critique.

But wait a moment ... for some mysterious, unfathomable reason, you have totally missed addressing my last point. Why on earth could that be?

I'll reiterate it here, in case you should choose to address it, as is required for your argument to hold water.

The would-be debunker's methodology is invalid. His analysis does not support the claims he makes for it. It is unsound. The conclusions he draws are totally unsafe. He claims expertise, but is apparently unaware of how to validate a print.

The FBI's own position (set out in a 1968 position statement entitled "fingerprints do not lie", which still obtains today, and to which I have actively referred you), clearly states that once an examiner has identified the required number of matching points, there are *by definition* no discrepancies between the prints.

The actual task before the would-be debunker was to actively disprove a minimum of one of Darby's points of correlation. He could (quite literally) identify 100 new non-matching points and he still would not have disproven the original ID.

That, my friend, is the argument that have managed to somehow avoid addressing. I assume good faith, so let's agree that this avoidance was accidental on your part. But I have now brought it to your attention. What is your response?

Even if you choose (for whatever reason) to ignore every other word in this post, you need to address the preceding three paragraphs in order to have a hope in hell of your would-be debunker's analysis being relevant, let alone reliable.

As it stands, the man is proven incompetent, and his "argument" is null and void.

So, have at it. I'm off for a coffee, so you've plenty of time to come up with something. Anything will do. But continued avoidance of this "killer app" will mean you quite literally have no argument whatsoever against Darby's ID.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How so? Show your working.

Well, YOU mentioned the limited time span a print will remain for collection on a cardboard medium. Given how short that window is, and that it was still there to be collected, it was more likely to be made after the shooting. The further back in time you extend that window from the moment the print was collected, the lower the probability.

It is not a case of one or the other. It is an observation of which is the higher probability.

if you are arguing that Wallace arrived at the crime scene after Oswald had lef but before the police identified the "sniper's nest" area, that in itself would be suspicious. Why would Wallace be privy to the location of the sniper?

No. Because I am not arguing the print was made by Wallace.

But IF the print were made by Wallace, who was apparently an agent of LBJ then yes, it would be suspicious. But it would also be more likely than Wallace being a shooter.

Prerequisites for your theory seem to be LBJ was corrupt and Wallace was on his payroll for illegal activities. Heck, as a hitman. Why is it less likely that LBJ would have his fixer and hitman carry out a private investigation than he would have Wallace stage an elaborate assassination conspiracy?

And please note that IF.

You are also dealing with quite a small time frame, after the assassination, after Oswald had apparently fled and before the police arrived on the scene. I can't remember offhand how long this "window" lasted, but I think I recall that it was in the order of 30 minutes or so.

So all prints were collected within 30 minutes of the first shot having been fired?
Otherwise, you misunderstand the window of opportunity I am describing.

Even if it was as much as one whole hour, or even two at a stretch, there is clearly a substantially longer window of opportunity between 9am that morning (when the TSBD opened for business) at the assassination at 12.30pm that same day. I'd argue that this suggests (but does not prove) a greater probability of him being there prior to the assassination.

The window is not defined by when the TSBD opened for business. It is defined by how quickly moisture from a latent print will remain recoverable from cardboard in the conditions of the day. It is possible it was left before, but again is more likely to be left after IMO, because of the limited time frame.

Remove the time that the print remains viable and your argument is damaged. All it proves is that somebody touched the box at some time. Odd that CT advocates have, as I am sure you noticed, adopted the urgency of the prints short life expectancy when it comes to saying "Wallace" (or whomever left the print...) was there that day. They use the words when it fits their case, but are unwilling to face the greater consequences.

That said, I'm willing to consider Wallace being there after the assassination, if you can provide a persuasive time-frame and an innocent reason for him being there. Even if these two are somewhat hypothetical.

Well, because that would be a reversal of the burden of proof: You are the one who claims the print IF it were Wallace meant he was part of the killing. You have to prove this is so. Other persuasive reasons have been offered.

And even if I felt the need to offer alternates, rather than judge your argument on its own merit why does it have to be innocent? This has been repeated over and over again. If we assume the prerequisites of your apparent theory and the LBJ conspiracy it is quite clear Wallace could be there as an illegal reaction to the shots, not to cause them. Hell, it is far more in character with the way the conspiracy theorists portray him.

Well, (a) you're wrong because it has in fact been "seconded" and (b) you're wrong because lack of confirmation does not actively negate the original identification.

It fails to validate. It makes the identification invalid.
The FBI said no match.
The guy who was first sent the prints for validation said No Match.
I am correct.

I don't mean this condescendingly, but I don't think you understand how fingerprinting works.

Well, you are making a habit of not meaning to be condescending and still sounding condescending. Perhaps you should just avoid saying those things at all. Or find a better way of addressing the issue.

I may be no expert, but I know enough to recognise the flaws in the evidence and the methodology used to ID the print. If you know better go back to the posts where I listed those in detail AND RESPOND TO THOSE FLAWS. Just saying "You don't know" hardly seems to make you look as though you were well informed on the subject yourself.

Anything to say about the issue of the healed wound in the comparison print? The expected pressure distortion from moving the box? The sources of the "blind" comparisons? As you have offered nothing so far have you? How about the FBI declaring no match?

Because the would-be debunker relied on a second generation copy (digital, unknown resolution) of that same photocopy to make his own deductions.

Yes. The same photocopy he said was unsuitable for making a match. Kind of the point. If he had said "This is not Wallace it is Betty Boop" or some other positive statement you would have a point. As he looked at the copy and declared IT WAS UNSUITABLE FOR REACHING A MATCH you just keep highlighting the flaw with your claim. Well done.

Without explaining how it was apparently fit for one task and yet not for the other.

So he should have persisted anyway?

No, you are completely misrepresenting the would-be debunker's stated position. I presume this is through a lack of attention, rather than deliberately.

He claimed to be able to identify (on this substandard photocopy) specific features that ruled out the Darby ID.

Yes. All of them broad strokes within the identified limitations. And, because you keep missing the point, with a caveat that the clarity of the source should be taken into account when we consider how conclusive these findings are.

Who really should we be more impressed by? The one who admits the flaws when reporting his claims and talks in broad features like scars, or the one who claims perfect clarity regardless of source, then holds a press conference to call the ID a slam dunk?

That's not what I am saying at all. The photocopy is clearly not ideal, but I am willing to accept Darby's identification.

So you accept evidence that is not ideal, and contradictory witness testimony and the only reason the print could be left was by Wallace.

So when will you tell what did there?

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's just incredible to see lone-gunman theorists nit-picking the Wallace print ID when they refuse to examine the Oswald latent palmprint with the same degree of scrutiny and when there are far more problems with the palmprint. If Oswald had gone to trial, even the worst trial judge would have felt compelled the throw out the latent palmprint. We know even the WC had doubts about the palmprint. Some facts and questions, from my article on the palmprint:

1. Lt. Day said he could still see the print on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints. So, what happened to the print that Day said remained visible on the rifle after lifting? And why did Latona find no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints?

2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.

3. Lt. Day said he didn't take any photographs of the print because just as he was about to do so he received a call from Chief Curry's office telling him to stop all work on the rifle so that FBI could finish what he had started. In his WC testimony, Day said this call came at around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. However, Lt. Day, by his own admission, took another photograph of the rifle half an hour to an hour later, at 9:00 or 9:30 (4 H 273). Why, then, didn't he take a picture of the print on the barrel?

Moreover, in an earlier statement, made to the FBI, Day said the call from the chief's office came just before midnight. If so, why didn't he photograph the palmprint on the barrel? Why the marked conflict concerning when he received the call from Curry's office? (It's worth noting that in the three times that Chief Curry appeared before the WC he said nothing about making any such call, nor did he say anything about directing anyone from his office to make such a call. Curry, or someone from his office, probably did call Day shortly before midnight just to advise him that an FBI agent was about to come and pick up the rifle. That was probably all that was said--that was all that would have needed to be said, e.g., "Hey, an FBI guy's coming to get the rifle in a little while, so just make sure it's ready for him to pick up." Lt. Day would have been at perfect liberty to take a minute or two to take a few photos of the palmprint on the barrel, and he certainly would have done so had there been such a print.)

4. Why did Lt. Day depart from routine procedure by not photographing the palmprint before he supposedly lifted it?

5. Why didn't Lt. Day forward the lift along with the rifle? When asked about this by the FBI, Day, incredibly, said he didn't forward the lift because he wanted to analyze it further to compare it to Oswald's palmprint. This seems to contradict Day's WC statement that he didn't photograph the print on the barrel because he was allegedly told to stop all work on the rifle at 8:00 or 8:30 that night. How was the FBI supposed to finish what Day had started without the lift itself? If Lt. Day didn't photograph the print on the barrel because he felt he had to strictly comply with the alleged order from the chief's office, why would he have presumed to withhold the lift from the FBI so he could analyze it further?

6. Lt. Day pointed out the trigger-guard prints to the FBI agent who came to pick up the rifle at 11:45, Agent Vincent Drain. However, Drain reported that Day said nothing about any palmprint on the barrel. If Lt. Day, as he later claimed, did in fact tell Agent Drain about the palmprint, why would Drain have denied this? And, why did Agent Drain's superiors at the FBI likewise report that they knew nothing about any palmprint on the barrel until the lift arrived seven days later? Prior to that, they said, they had heard nothing about the palmprint from law enforcement officials in Dallas.

When Rankin asked the FBI to secure more information from Lt. Day about the palmprint, the agent who approached the lieutenant about making a sworn signed statement on the matter was Agent Drain. Though Day would not sign a sworn statement for the FBI on his handling of the palmprint, the FBI did interview him, and the Bureau sent the Commission a summary of that interview less than two weeks before the Commission completed its final report. The interviewer was none other than Agent Drain himself. One would think Lt. Day would have vehemently protested to Agent Drain during the interview that he had pointed out the palmprint to him on the night of November 22. And why wouldn't Day make a signed sworn statement to the FBI about his handling of the palmprint?

7. Why didn't the lift of the palmprint arrive to the Washington FBI until November 29, whereas the other prints--from cartons in the Book Depository--arrived and were examined on November 27? Why the delay?

Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/palmprint.htm

There was ample opportunity for the DPD to get Oswald to handle the rifle while they were questioning him. There's also the fact that FBI agents paid a visit to the morgue to take more of Oswald's prints--very odd, since he had been thoroughly fingerprinted by the DPD. And then there's the problem of the strange location of the palmprint itself.

 

[supposenot]

Sorry, but until you address the key fact of the FBI's dictum on matching points in fingerprinting, you still have no argument.

This is the third time you have failed to respond to this unavoidable fact, and it will begin to look to a reasonable observer as though you are doing so deliberately.

I could address the rest of the points you raise, and no doubt spark further debate on them, but until you demonstrate willingness to play fairly, I see no reason why I am required to do so. Your other points are not crucial to the validity of the print ID.

The matter of the FBI position statement, however, most definitely is, and applying it blows the debunker's arguments apart like the incompetent and insubstantial noodlings they really are.

Address this one fact. You may be able to come up with some compelling argument against it that I have never thought of. To be honest, that is kind of what I was hoping for when I came to this thread. A good theory needs to be tested to destruction.

Kindly address this point before we move on, or I will consider the point proved and move on to other areas of discussion, since this recurring avoidance of the critical factor is starting to bore me.

 

[turingtest]

Yes, "hard" forensic objective evidence. I don't think I've claimed that it is new, though, since it so obviously isn't.

What I have claimed is new, because it is, is my demolition of the supposed debunking of the Wallace fingerprint.

So I would suggest that you've got confused. No shame in that, happens to the best of us.

To be clear from the outset here (though I thought I was before)- I don't care about the debunking; I'm talking about the solidity of your expert's ID. That's it- so your demolition, even if new, is wasted time AFAIC.

Without knowing what search terms to use, however, the search function isn't much assistance. I still maintain that my request for a summary or a link was not unreasonable.

We're talking about the "Mac Wallace fingerprint"- and you don't know what search terms to use? Try "Mac Wallace fingerprint." And your request is for what would amount to a courtesy from us; yours, OTOH, is more of an obligation to know what's already been discussed before joining a discussion. You would probably have gotten the courtesy if you hadn't begun by contesting the obligation.

Again (although not solely from you) the print is characterised as 'shaky'. On what grounds precisely?

Your own grounds- the second-best nature (if that) of the source of the ID (the photocopy), which you have yourself admitted to, and others, as explained below.

It would indeed be a simple case of tu quoque if that were my sole objection, but it is not. If the debunker claims that the photocopy is not adequate for an identification to be sustained, but perfectly adequate to provide a negative match, then he is self-evidently not being consistent. I noted this as an irony, and I put it no stronger than that. It tends to undermine his argument, but it doesn't of itself dismiss it.

I don't care about the debunker and what he may or may not have proved.

Care to expand on that rather gnomic reflection?

If you're relying solely on an ID arrived at by a technique that is, by your own admission, as much a matter of subjective qualification as it is objective quantification (or more so), then it's shaky to begin with. Clear enough?

Well, although I wasn't aware of it yesterday, the print has indeed been verified by a second expert in a blind test. In any event, I address the "non-verification" issue below.

And this second expert would be...?

Indeed, and despite the limitations of his material he was able to arrive at 14 point match (the threshold for court admissibility) and subsequently a 36 point match.

"Fingerprinting is more akin to an art than an exact science"- remember? So all you have here is a song with more notes. That doesn't make it a better song.

You lost are awfully keen on apportioning the burden of proof, as though there were only one such indivisible notional entity.

Both experts have to shoulder the burden of proof for their respective positions. It's a question of which one can support that burden best.

Darby has a 26-point match on his side. The debunker has nothing at all. I address this below.

And your lot seems awfully keen on avoiding that burden when it's yours to carry. One more time- I don't care about the debunking; it's not necessary, to me, to show that he didn't carry his negative point if Darby's original positive one is in question on other grounds. Verifying Darby's ID is your burden; your perception that someone else hasn't carried their load does nothing to lighten yours.

That does not negate the original identification, it merely fails to corroborate it.

And that's taking their statement at face value, without even considering the fact that the FBI could be suggested as a not wholly impartial adjudicator in reassessing its own evidence.

It would be nice, therefore, if the FBI were to publish their analysis, or pass the test itself over to a non-interested third party.

But that would insinuate corruption, and I have no concrete evidence of that, so it remains nothing more than a slight possibility.

Far more likely is the possibility of misinterpretation. Without straying too far from the point in hand, the FBI has certainly been massively mistaken about fingerprint evidence in one high-profile case in recent years that we know of.

The reasons for a possible false negative are several and complex. I am happy to discuss this issue further, if you wish.

The point I was trying to make here is that you appealed to FBI protocols, and how Darby apparently failed them. So it's fair to ask what result the FBI got using their own protocol. It's true the lack of corroboration doesn't "negate" the ID, but it certainly at least calls it into question- aka "makes it shaky."

Again, you have not justified your characterisation of the evidence as shaky, far less dismissed it from the table altogether. It's still there.

See all of above.

Nope. And if there were, it would be all too easy to cast doubt upon their testimonies.

Then you have nothing else. That, simply, is my whole point- this one problematical fingerprint ID is not enough to hang anybody's hat on (and I hope you won't object too much to "problematical"- the very fact that it's debated should be enough to show at least that much).

There is no actual law of nature that requires a conspiracy to be simple or self-evident, so characterising it as "unnecessary" is a species of metaphor at best.

I repeat, the Wallace fingerprint is hard evidence and has so far withstood debunking.

I also note that you have completely ignored my final point about best practice in fingerprint evidence. That point is the "killer app" that destroy's the debunker's supposed "argument" beyond any hope of repair, even if you ignore the preceding three objections, and exposes him as (to be quite frank) a nincompoop who doesn't know what he is doing.

Why did you completely ignore that point? Please explain.

If you can.

As I've said here, my point about the FBI non-ID was to the point of your "best practice" objection.

And, no, there is no requirement for a conspiracy to be simple or self-evident. There is also no requirement for nature to be so. But there is a requirement for someone wanting to expose the one or explain the other to at least make it explicable. My "unnecessary" was to say that, AFAICT, the Mac Wallace scenario goes nowhere- it's inexplicable. It's like creationists slapping a "goddidit!" label on everything science uncovers- it adds nothing, answers nothing.

(BTW- I saw your apology to JayUtah here. That was classy. I also appreciate the way you've been able to stick to a point and discuss it rationally; we can disagree, but at least we're discussing points, not avoiding them)

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I will never understand why these guys think a Gish Gallop would work on the Internet. Live debate? Sure, blather away and overcome your opponent with the quantity, if not the quality, of your argument. But in this setting, we can see where the discussion has been and where it still needs focus.

It's all about perspective. From the other guy's point of view: "Yeah, I raised a whole bunch of issues and those dunderheads at JREF couldn't answer a single one of them. All they did was complain that I was being so thorough."

The motto of conspiracism is that every man's a hero in his own eyes.

True. I understand why they would use it; I don't understand why they would think it would work. The thing that makes the Gish Gallop so dishonest is its reliance on the time-constraints built into live debate- the problem with answering fully, in as little time as it takes to spew them, a barrage of quote-mines, strawmen, half-truths, and whole lies. But there's no such time limitation here; all anyone has to do is scroll up to see what was said, then address it point by point. The only constraint is patience with the technique.

 

[supposenot]

To be clear from the outset here (though I thought I was before)- I don't care about the debunking; I'm talking about the solidity of your expert's ID. That's it- so your demolition, even if new, is wasted time AFAIC.

OK, you appear to differ in stance from your fellow nonspiracists. I can respect that, even if I can't in good conscience meet you in the middle.

Darby arrived at a 14 point match, to which he was willing to swear an affidavit, thus making it both admissible and court-ready. He then arrived at a 36-point match, which exceeds by a factor of two-and-a-bit the threshold for admissibility.

The 14-point match was then agreed with by another expert in another blind test. Thus confirming it, even though the expert subsequently attempted to withdraw his confirmation when he learned the identity of the print owner and the case it pertained to, which is not an acceptable basis for refuting one's own forensic opinion.

We're talking about the "Mac Wallace fingerprint"- and you don't know what search terms to use? Try "Mac Wallace fingerprint." And your request is for what would amount to a courtesy from us; yours, OTOH, is more of an obligation to know what's already been discussed before joining a discussion. You would probably have gotten the courtesy if you hadn't begun by contesting the obligation.

Obviously it occurred to me to search "Mac Wallace", but this would still have failed to zero me in on the precise post containing the supposedly-vital argument that my opponent at the time was referring to. Indeed, he didn't provide enough information to identify that argument at all, so I would have had to read every post that mentioned Mac Wallace, and then deduce what it was he wanted to impart from among that reading.

I said before, and I maintain now, that asking for a summary was not unreasonable in the circumstances (since he claimed to be familiar with it), and offering to meet him halfway by asking for a link (and then reading the post myself) was still less unreasonable, whereas expecting me to zero in, totally unaided, on an unspecified post containing an unspecified argument that may not even have mentioned Mac Wallace by name is self-evidently unreasonable.

I still have no idea what this supposed argument was, btw, or how it was meant to be relevant to me. If it's been reiterated in the current discussion it wasn't the 'magic bullet' it was being touted as. If it hasn't been reiterated, it obviously wasn't worth looking for.

Anyway, we are quite obviously never going to agree on this and it's yesterday's news now. So this is the last time I'm discussing the matter.

Your own grounds- the second-best nature (if that) of the source of the ID (the photocopy), which you have yourself admitted to, and others, as explained below.

I'll accept its status as 'second best' quality, wch I think is a fair characterisation. But I don't think doing so automatically renders the identification of the print inherently unreliable. The FBI would only provide access to a photocopy, so that was what Darby worked with, first to a 14-point match, then to a 36-point match. (although why he didn't then swear an affidavit to the subsequent 36-point match, I do not pretend to know).

If you maintain that the non-ideal photocopy makes the identification inherently unreliable per se, then the question becomes why did the FBI refuse to grant access to the original?

I don't think the photocopy issue is a crucial point. It would have been better if the ID was made from an original, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't utterly condemn it. And again, what are the odds that the vagaries of photocopying would randomly produce 14 or 36 apparent loci that matched a convicted murderer with ties to the assassination's chief benefactor? This is stretching your case a bit imho.

If you're relying solely on an ID arrived at by a technique that is, by your own admission, as much a matter of subjective qualification as it is objective quantification (or more so), then it's shaky to begin with. Clear enough?

Clear enough, but not soundly reasoned. The fact that fingerprint verification is not an exact science does not make it unimportant from a legal point of view. In your haste to junk the Wallace ID, you are throwing out the entire field of fingerprint forensics, which I am sure you do not intend.

Another example of a legally-usable non-science, for consideration: Photofits of suspects, or police artist impressions. Definitely an artform, definitely subjective to a varying degree and definitely of use in law enforcement and criminal justice.

And this second expert would be...?

E H Hoffmeister, latent print examiner, Dallas, Texas. This took about three seconds to find on google. No, don't thank me, it's a pleasure to do your legwork for you.

"Fingerprinting is more akin to an art than an exact science"- remember? So all you have here is a song with more notes. That doesn't make it a better song.

No, your metaphor does not succeed. But to stay with the musical comparison, what we do have is two top-class singers in perfect harmony.

And your lot seems awfully keen on avoiding that burden when it's yours to carry.

"My lot"? Although a majority of US citizens believe there was a JFK conspiracy, this is a widely scattered field with many competing theories, and the Mac Wallace ID has yet to gain popular traction. So I think it's unfair to suggest all conspiracy theorists think or behave alike.

One more time- I don't care about the debunking; it's not necessary, to me, to show that he didn't carry his negative point if Darby's original positive one is in question on other grounds. Verifying Darby's ID is your burden; your perception that someone else hasn't carried their load does nothing to lighten yours.

I've addressed this point above, you are just repeating yourself.

The point I was trying to make here is that you appealed to FBI protocols, and how Darby apparently failed them.

Er, you what? I am claiming the debunker failed them, not Darby. I assume this was a slip on your part.

So it's fair to ask what result the FBI got using their own protocol. It's true the lack of corroboration doesn't "negate" the ID, but it certainly at least calls it into question- aka "makes it shaky."

Not so. You fail to understand what I have stated repeatedly, that a non-confirmed match does not become a negated match. The more experts that agree, the merrier, but it is quite possible for one expert to 'go it alone'. I would, however, tend to agree that given the second-best quality of the reproduced evidence, a second opinion would (and briefly did) provide "belt and braces."

Then you have nothing else.

Actually, I have the Factor and Estes confessions. And as back-up (although it doesn't specifically finger Wallace himself) I have E Howard Hunt's confession fingering LBJ, which is another thread in my skein. I also have a Nixon aide relating Nixon's account of how Jack Ruby and LBJ were linked, and this link is supported to some degree by documentation. Even though the Ruby/LBJ link is a separate issue, it again implicates LBJ thus indirectly strengthening the likelihood of Wallace being involved.

When we are eventually finished with the Wallace fingerprint, which from my POV will be quite soon, as we are going round in circles, I'd like to suggest that we look at the LBJ/Ruby link.

That, simply, is my whole point- this one problematical fingerprint ID is not enough to hang anybody's hat on (and I hope you won't object too much to "problematical"- the very fact that it's debated should be enough to show at least that much).

Well, that's not entirely sound as a characterisation, although I see where you are coming from I think. If you claim the sky is blue and I (for my own amusement) claim the sky is green, that doesn't make the colour of the sky problematical. Perhaps that's a mere quibble though.

The Wallace print has been verified by two experts (only one is actually required, but given the non-ideal quality of the forensic evidence, two would be a reasonable precaution) and it identifies a convicted murdered with personal ties to the assassination's chief benefactor, who didn't have any innocent reason to be at the crime scene on the day of the shooting.

So the fingerprint itself is one strand in a larger evidence set, and can't really be considered in isolation. Circumstantial evidence is like that, and cases have been won on circumstantial evidence alone. I believe the Wallace case would stand up in court in its current state.

I would refer you to my original challenge. Calculate the odds of an unidentified individual with fingerprints that match a convicted murderer's prints, being present at the crime scene on the day of the assassination, with an innocent reason for being there.

Or, if you prefer to dwell on the second-best nature of the evidence's quality, calculate the odds of a photocopier randomly producing a match to that same unidentified individual.

As I've said here, my point about the FBI non-ID was to the point of your "best practice" objection.

And I repeat, a non-match is not a negation, as they are two entirely different processes.

And, no, there is no requirement for a conspiracy to be simple or self-evident. There is also no requirement for nature to be so. But there is a requirement for someone wanting to expose the one or explain the other to at least make it explicable. My "unnecessary" was to say that, AFAICT, the Mac Wallace scenario goes nowhere- it's inexplicable. It's like creationists slapping a "goddidit!" label on everything science uncovers- it adds nothing, answers nothing.

I don't think that's a reasonable stance at all. Even if Wallace didn't fire a gun that day (and I am quite happy to admit that there is no solid and undisputed evidence that he or anyone else did so), he would be considered a suspect in a potential conspiracy case due to his presence at the crime scene without an innocent explanation. How that would unfold is anyone's guess, and sort of irrelevant now that everyone involved is dead.

(BTW- I saw your apology to JayUtah here. That was classy. I also appreciate the way you've been able to stick to a point and discuss it rationally; we can disagree, but at least we're discussing points, not avoiding them)

Thank you, it was meant sincerely.

 

[supposenot]

Oh and the "Gish Gallop" accusation cuts both ways. (You Randi-ites are quite keen on sceptical buzzword bingo, aren't you?) If the nonspiracists (or a representative thereof) can boil their entire argument down to a single par, then let them do so.

 

[JayUtah]

Before I re-enter the fray, I would like to apologise to JayUtah for attacking him on a personal basis last night.

I accept your apology. Neither do I mean to cause personal offense; if you have taken any I also apologize. On a more objective note, it takes a while to get used to what the moderation here considered personal and impersonal arguments.

That having been said, and without in any way qualifying that apology, I think it is sensible from now on if I don't react to the content of your posts at all, unless either of the following situations prevails:

There are certain people on this forum I tend to "leave alone" for similar reasons. But again on a more objective note, saying you'll address only certain content in the debate is, in fact, no debate. Your reasons for doing so are sound but the effect won't be to your liking, nor will it serve the subject.

I've been doing this a very long time. By "this" I mean examining fringe theories and testing them for soundness, and debating their proponents. And by "a long time" I mean nearly thirty years. I'm one of the few people here who also works under my real name, and in other venues such as radio, print, and television. It is not my profession, but it is a way in which I can make my profession (science and engineering) a little more fun.

Far from trying to impress or intimidate you with my resume, I give you this background as foundation for stating that I'm very familiar not only with the content of most conspiracy theories, but also with the rhetorical frameworks in which they are presented.

In many cases, whether intentional or otherwise, the argument for a conspiracy is framed in a way to render the debate nonprobative -- that is, unable to test the meat of the question. Very often the proponent wants to skip over problematic parts of his claims the focus only on the points he thinks he can win. In order to truly test a claim, we have to examine three things: the facts, the line of reasoning, and the epistemological frame. All three of these must be sound before we can propose to test a theory.

Perhaps now my approach makes more sense to you. I promise it is not designed to antagonize, to inflame, or to sidestep important facts. It is designed to achieve a suitable and probative test of a claim without simply devolving into a rhetorical show.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and the "Gish Gallop" accusation cuts both ways. (You Randi-ites are quite keen on sceptical buzzword bingo, aren't you?) If the nonspiracists (or a representative thereof) can boil their entire argument down to a single par, then let them do so.

Already done:
Weight of evidence points towards Oswald.

A single par for why your argument fails:
Evidence yet to satisfy scrutiny and convince us for reasons already pointed out.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, but until you address the key fact of the FBI's dictum on matching points in fingerprinting, you still have no argument.

This is the third time you have failed to respond to this unavoidable fact, and it will begin to look to a reasonable observer as though you are doing so deliberately..

Yes. And the reasons for that deliberate reluctance have been stated.

I have no interest in that issue. Nobody here is obliged to only argue the points you desire us to argue. The burden is for you to prove the theory valid, not for anybody to debunk you.

Stop. Take a deep breath. And ask yourself why anybody would want to move on to that when you have yet to address the problems with the foundation of your argument.

Shall I now assume you have no wish at all to discuss why the FBI made a statement that the print was a No Match to Wallace?
Shall I assume you are deliberately ignoring the many fundamental issues that I have already raised? Is it a deliberate action of yours to avoid discussing anything other than this one point?

From my point of view, the more you stamp your foot and insist this is the only aspect we should discuss the less likely it is that your first principles are in order and the less inclined I feel to jump ahead.

I mean, if you actually wanted to discuss this like an adult, and had research you were proud of you would take the time to answer questions, show it passes scrutiny.

 

[I Ratant]

A situation of this importance... shouldn't it be handled at a higher level than an obscure internet site?
Contacting the Dallas Daily Enquirer and their team of investigative reporters..
Yeah, that's it!

 

[Tomtomkent]

A situation of this importance... shouldn't it be handled at a higher level than an obscure internet site?
Contacting the Dallas Daily Enquirer and their team of investigative reporters..
Yeah, that's it!

Perhaps with the revelation that fingerprint analysis is an art not an objective science. The very thought that so many criminals need only have somebody offer a subjective opinion on key evidence in a criminal trial (and that identifications once made are not invalidated or even brought into question by a failure to replicate the match by third parties) would be something of a scoop.

I'm sorry even the idea that there is a "debunker" is annoying. Critique is not debunking. Questioning if there is something to be debunked is not debunking. The claims do not pass scrutiny. They do not address thirty year old issues.

Is somebody wants to talk about the FBI methodology (odd for an art form, but there you go...), then how can there be further discussion. The FBI applied their methodology and found no match decades ago.

Why did they do that?

 

[supposenot]

Yes. And the reasons for that deliberate reluctance have been stated.

Ok, so you accept by default my debunking of the debunker? That's progress.

I have no interest in that issue. Nobody here is obliged to only argue the points you desire us to argue. The burden is for you to prove the theory valid, not for anybody to debunk you.

I have explained why I think the evidence is valid and creditable, and this has not IMHO been adequately dismissed, and I have debunked the proffered debunker. There is therefore effectively no opposition to the Wallace print ID.

Stop. Take a deep breath. And ask yourself why anybody would want to move on to that when you have yet to address the problems with the foundation of your argument.

If you have new concerns that I have not so far addressed, I am all ears. But I suspect we are due another spin on the merry-go-round.

Shall I now assume you have no wish at all to discuss why the FBI made a statement that the print was a No Match to Wallace?

That would be unwise, since I have already stated that I am more than happy to discuss possible reasons. This remark was however addressed to someone else, so perhaps it's unfair to expect you to have read it, let alone metabolised it. So I reiterate that willingness now for you personally.

I think it's a waste of everyone's time though. As I have said, a failed match is not a negation. They are two completely discrete processes. Quite why this doesn't seem to be sinking in, I really don't understand, but I am fairly patient and understand that new concepts take time to be assimilated, especially when they conflict with an individual's long-established thought-patterns.

Shall I assume you are deliberately ignoring the many fundamental issues that I have already raised?

That would be an assumption of bad faith on your part, and would tend to suggest more about your character than it proves about mine.

I believe I have addressed all the concerns put to me. I may be mistaken in that, so feel free to provide as brief a précis as possible, please.

Is it a deliberate action of yours to avoid discussing anything other than this one point?

People keep demanding I respond to their concerns about the print. I have a set of established facts and related evidence to which I keep referring.

In a nonspiracist, this would probably be characterised as 'consistency'. In a conspiracist it automatically gets characterised as somehow disreputable. However, I do not repine, and I am optimistic that my point will eventually percolate through to daylight.

From my point of view, the more you stamp your foot and insist this is the only aspect we should discuss the less likely it is that your first principles are in order and the less inclined I feel to jump ahead.

I am not the one who keeps returning to them. I have a solid print ID that has been confirmed and which meets the FBI's print-matching criteria. I have also demolished that print ID's sole exemplary critic as an irrelevant buffoon.

I am more than happy to move on from this point, but people keep dragging me back again and again, demanding that I satisfy 100 per cent their individual highly-personalised and frequently unreasonable demands.

Also, mischaracterising me as 'stamping my feet' is getting dangerously close to an ad hom. I will report you, or anyone, who crosses that line. Just friendly advice.

I mean, if you actually wanted to discuss this like an adult, and had research you were proud of you would take the time to answer questions, show it passes scrutiny.

That insult has now been reported to the moderators. The rest of your paragraph is hilariously and cosmically irrelevant. Have a nice day.

 

[supposenot]

Perhaps with the revelation that fingerprint analysis is an art not an objective science. The very thought that so many criminals need only have somebody offer a subjective opinion on key evidence in a criminal trial (and that identifications once made are not invalidated or even brought into question by a failure to replicate the match by third parties) would be something of a scoop.

Not at all, although it would certainly be news to you, who does not currently understand the difference between lack of confirmation and invalidation. As I have now said more times than I can count, these are two different processes, so your attempted satire falls flat on its metaphorical behind due to your inadvertently-evidenced ignorance.

Also, are you really suggesting that a suspect could face trial, let alone conviction, if the only evidence against him were a fingerprint?

Really? Is that what you actually believe? Please elaborate either way. (I am giving you the opportunity to abandon this extravagantly unwise position without embarrassment to yourself, I advise you to take it with both hands).

I'm sorry even the idea that there is a "debunker" is annoying. Critique is not debunking.

St Randi describes himself as a 'debunker' does he not? I had thought the term was understood around here as referring to one who takes it upon himself to attempt to disprove "extraordinary claims".

OK then, rather than debunking a debunker, I have destroyed the argument of a critic. What difference does it make? His argument still isn't worth jack.

Questioning if there is something to be debunked is not debunking. The claims do not pass scrutiny. They do not address thirty year old issues.

On the contrary, the claim emerged from blind test conditions following up on a witness statement. That claim was then confirmed by a second expert, who chickened out and tried to retract. The claim then proceeded to become the subject of a *ahem* critic's argument. That critic's argument has been shot down in flames. The claim has passed scrutiny.

Not sure what you are referring to by "thirty year old issues" and I suspect you aren't entirely clear either.

Is somebody wants to talk about the FBI methodology (odd for an art form, but there you go...),

This is just pedantry, and irrelevant. There is a fingerprint methodology, the same as there is an identikit methodology. Both are non-scientific.

then how can there be further discussion. The FBI applied their methodology and found no match decades ago.

For the umpteenth time, not finding a match is NOT the same thing as disproving an identification.

They. Are. Two. Separate. Processes.

Please write this out 500 times until you have got it.