JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[I Ratant]

I'm wondering which CTwinkie book will be brought up as worth discussing the next time this obvious troll comes by?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have tried to find information about Hoffmeister and what he said about the alleged Mac Wallace fingerprint. All I have been able to find are 45th hand accounts on internet forums: educationforum, jfkassassinationforum, Amazon forum. In each forum, someone tells the story that Hoffmeister confirmed a match, heard it was related to JFK, and then retracted. This story never has a citation. No further detail beyond this bare bones account is given.



Does anyone have reliable information about this subject?

None. Which is precisely why I asked how the conclusion was reached that it was cowardice, rather than a failure to match after further study. I notice no answer was forthcoming,

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, it is progress -- from my point of view, if not from yours -- that you are apparently willing to accept by default (i.e., by choosing not to challenge) my destruction of the proffered expert's "debunking".

Because I don't think people should set out to debunk I should ignore the information?

Tsk. You really should differentiate between disapproval of intention and invalidating evidence.

I trust that is now clear.

That you continue to condescend is abundantly clear.

Feel free to look up the credentials of the two concordant print examiners I am citing. You are also free to examine the 1968 FBI position statement document entitled "Fingerprints do not lie", which set out protocols for how to verify a match (protocols which the proffered expert debunker failed to follow).

Argument from authority. Nobody questioned the credentials. Heck, my arguments have nothing to do with your debunker but issues not yet confronted.

I am content to let my faith in the fingerprint evidence rest on that foundation.

And not to address the issues I raised. Repeatedly. Good for you. It does not convince, so you fail.

You may not be. That is your choice. Short of testing it in a properly constituted court of law, it remains in the same legal limbo as the case against Oswald,i

But not in historical limbo. Why did the FBI reach a conclusion of No Match based on their study?
Why did Hoff declare no match (and show evidence to prove why this was his decision)?
What implications do these hold for how much weight the evidence holds?
What is your theory that best fits all evidence for the events of that day?
You can try answer these some time, rather than just talking about one debunker I have never shown interest in.

having never been tested and demonstrated to the satisfaction of a Jury that the case has been proven to beyond a reasonable doubt.

So would that be a case built upon only a fingerprint? You really did miss an earlier point about this by a country mile, even after you tried to bounce it back at me. It truly does seem you think an awful lot more than can be read from the presence of a single print, even IF it were confirmed.

If you are expecting me or my adduced experts to provide proof to that standard before you will accept it, then you are gravely misunderstanding the nature of legal proof.

And when did this become a court of law rather than a discussion of historical evidence?

Please note: I say "if", since it is not entirely clear to me on what grounds you refuse to countenance this doubly blind-confirmed and undebunked evidence,

Because the test was not double blinded. Or single blinded as it claimed to be. Nice of you to double the claim of blinding. Neither has it been validated. I fail to see how it can be unclear why I feel this when I have repeated my issues in several posts.

when taken into context of two separate witness statements/confessions (elicited before the print ID emerged, from individuals unknown to one another, one of whom was a close colleague of the suspect he implicated), the confession of a top CIA agent implicating LBJ as the assassination's mastermind, and Richard Nixon's claim that Jack Ruby was LBJ's "clean up man".

Circular reasoning. I am supposed to credence the validity of the witness statements to support the print. But the only evidence to support the statements is the print. The statements do not tally. One holds ZERO information. None. And both come from sources made public, so who is to say one was not aware of the other using the name?

Moreover, the "confession" attributed to Factor is, by your own admission weak evidence. It is directly contradicted by provable evidence against Oswald acting alone. And features Oswald being driven away when he was provably murdering Tippit.

So that is two confessions, one with zero information or supporting evidence in a letter that was an obvious attempt at self interested plea bargaining, and one confession that does not meet the known facts, supporting a print that at best can be said to possibly, or probably be a name. At best.

Why on Earth you think the only options are that print is "Solid evidence" or "debunked" is beyond me. It remains childish to offer these as the only options.

And that's just the stuff I know about that is currently in the public domain and that I think (upon consideration) would be acceptable to a Jury.

Even when a barrister on the opposite side asks exactly why others are able to repeat the match and you can not answer?
Even when they ask how you know "chickening out" was the reason for a failed match, and you can not answer?
When it is asked how the wound issue is countered and no possible answer leads to an absolute confirmation?
When it is asked what timescale the print would be usable for and you instead talk about what time the TSBD opened and make no reference to the useful life of the print?
When you make big claims about the FBI methodology and somebody asks "did the FBI not use that same methodology"?
Given the quality of the photocopies used for analysis and the limitations thereof?

I think some doubts to the evidence may be "reasonable". Two claims, one piece of evidence. That means, despite your earlier outburst you are hinging a theoretical court case on one print. That was not on the murder weapon. The only murder weapon.

I have actually refused to engage with evidence purporting to support my case because I subjectively believe that it is not reliable (Madeline Brown and Barr McLellan).

And you unrealistically insist that others consider this evidence to pass their scrutiny.

I can hardly be expected to be 'all answers' when you are refusing to put questions to me, and are now demanding (in apparent seriousness) that I go looking for questions to disprove my own case.

Go looking? For the questions in recent posts (including this one...Again). Besides, you are advocating a theory, do you really expect others not to question it?

Does the phrase "Stick a broom up my a*** and I'll sweep the floor as I go" mean anything to you?

Yes. A breach of rule zero in the MA, and exactly the kind of insult you have complained about in several posts.

As I have already said, I do not know, since they have refused to release their analysis to the public or a non-interested third party, and haven't even put their conclusion in writing (it was issued by telephone call after they had sat on the evidence for 18 months).

I personally believe (but cannot prove) that the FBI's non-match was erroneous and I am quite happy to discuss why I believe that is probably the case. But then with two expert witnesses on my side, perhaps that's only to be expected.

So every time I ask why, despite you claiming to believe it was erroneous you wont tell me why?

Sorry, that just proves your argument is shallow. "Well I DO think I know, and I COULD discuss it... I just wont." Not convincing at all.
This guy used the FBI methodology! His work is sound!
The FBI used the FBI methodology! Their work is erroneous!

Take a moment. Think about the contradiction in your own claims.

As I have already explained, a failed confirmation is not a negation, so although it would be nice if the FBI had confirmed it, it's not really that necessary. A bit disappointing, but no more than that.

It does not negate. But it does cast doubt. It does mean that the conclusion is no longer rock solid, a slam dunk, or beyond question. It means the conclusion is not absolute.

And I don't actually know (and nor do you) that the FBI followed its own protocols anyway.

So the FBI methodology is not the methods used by the FBI?

<snip>
I will do precisely what I think I have to do to assemble a credible case. Anything else is a luxury. And I particularly will not be motivated to perform other people's legwork unless they have demonstrated their own incompetence and I feel like making them squirm.

You have not been assembling a credible case. It is being explained to you why you are not convincing anybody. By consistently arguing against things I am not saying you are making your own case less credible. By pretending not to know which questions have been repeated and not answered, you are making it clear your case is not credible.

But you are demanding that I follow a procedure laid out by you personally, ex cathedra, which is not relevant to the matching and verification procedures.

Yeah. I am telling you what it would take to convince me. I am offering you the critique you asked for. Is that a problem?

As incredible as you may find this, you could (in theory and within law) fail to obtain the agreement of one million fingerprint experts when trying to find a match, then find an expert confirmation on the 1,000,001st attempt, and claim in court, under oath, to have double-confirmed the initial print ID.

Yes. And it will then be asked why a million other experts did not declare a match. It will be asked if any revise their findings based on results that come after. Two in a million false positives would be expected. If you understood one of Jays earlier posts, you would understand the issue of outlayers.

This probably seems a horrendous abuse of proof and procedure to the fingerprint-naïve. But that is, I assure you, the brass tacks of the matter.

Yes. And it has an implication on the probability of an exact match. If you weren't so obsessed with two absolutes of confirmation or denial, you would understand that in all likelihood those million would represent a much wider spectrum of probabilities.

(Although admittedly in such an extreme example as my clearly-satirical one above, a Jury of even the most hardcore mouthbreathers might begin to wonder about the alleged infallibility of print evidence).

And most experts would argue against infallibility.

That is a very different kettle of fish to failing scrutiny. Thus far, it has passed and the only attempted invalidation to date has been proved irrelevant due to being performed by a demonstrated incompetent, by standards (I will remind you) that the initial ID met and then subsequently exceeded.

My issue is not with this. You seem to like it a lot, but my problems are with the accuracy of the claims attributed to the print, not the debunking. I know you really WANT this to be about the issue you want to talk about, but you seem to be making no attempt to address the issues actually raised.

It is simply not beyond reproach as you claim. This may well be a different kettle of fish to the one you have been offering, but it is the one others like myself have been discussing.

Unsupported assertion. Not worth addressing.

So you wont address that your reply missed the point I was making and discussed something else. Okay, I can read something into that...

Have I said that, or even implied it?

Yes, by doing it to others and complaining when they return the favour. Clear through action.

I am sorry my tone annoys you, but I would like to point out that I am communicating in writing and any tone associated with it is in your head rather than being an objective reality.

And ample examples have been given. if the tone is not intentional you should have realised how to avoid it by now.

I recognise that I am frequently sarcastic.

Then rather being sorry in the future, try not needing to be sorry.

I find irony a useful tool in illustrating flawed arguments,

Irony and sarcasm are not the same, and your posts contain no intended irony.

since it requires a 'penny drop' moment for the other party,

One day the penny may drop for you about what others have been arguing and you will respond to our points, instead of misrepresenting them? Or is loose change destined to defy gravity?

and it also helps keep me amused while ploughing endlessly through the ever-repeating treadmill of irrelevant demands that this thread has become.

You could end the repetition by addressing points made so people don't feel a need to repeat them.

Did you already provide it? It's possible that I have forgotten it (it's 11.25pm Britside, and my energies are admittedly flagging). Is it important? Can it wait till morning? If not, can you at least point me to its previous appearance please?

Several times. As you oppose to doing legwork for others I will just let you do your own. You have responded to posts that include them. So it seems unlikely you forgot what you were responding to...

As I said, you are demanding that I prove the entire case beyond a reasonable doubt,

No. I am asking you address issues that would convince me to a reasonable standard that this is a possibility. Yet another unreasonable demand you apply to yourself.

without legal process or the presence of a disinterested Jury. This simply isn't realistic of you, to put it mildly.

The thing I didn't ask for was not realistic? Well, try convincing me, rather than making a rod for your own back and blaming others.

The only possible alternative that I can see is that you are demanding that I provide the equivalent of scientific standards of repeatable proof (better than 95 per cent or whatever it is to reject the null hypothesis) for the entire case either considered in total or as separate aspects, which demand would constitute a very grave example of category error indeed.

No. I am asking for a reasonable level of reliable historical evidence, that leads to a theory that best explains the totality of evidence and is an arguably better fit than the null of Oswald acting alone.

Not easy, but far from impossible.

Are you capable of following your own logic? I denied that a previous statement was condescending, and I stated what it was intended to be ("exasperated"). I then slipped into condescension mode to demonstrate the difference.

You denied that the statement was INTENDED as condescending, it is reasonable to expect that when it is pointed out that your posts can be read as insulting you take that into consideration. If you acknowledge then continue anyway it says something about you.

You are completely up a gum tree with an exposed nether region on this little dig, because it clearly shows that you didn't follow what happened at all.

I am not sure your interpretation will be shared by all...

Why don't you be a good boy and go and read it again, and let us all know what you find, eh? (This is condescension).

And I am sure this will speak for itself too.

So, just out of interest, as you keep saying you are reporting people for rudeness, do you consider it a bad thing? Or only when others do it?

I believe I have answered all relevant questions to the best of my ability.

No. Scroll up. You do a fine job of telling me you have an answer then not providing it in this post.

Like I say, I'm getting tired. What points is it again that I am required to match up? (Remember the quote facility screens out the post of mine to which you are referring, so I have quite honestly lost track of this particular strand, although I am willing to bet it's mere nitpicking and not at all important, whatever it is you're on about).

Luckily the thread doesn't go anywhere. Read the last few pages again at your convenience.

I have already answered this, see above. You are not making your critique more impressive by asking the same questions twice.

Nope. You didn't offer a satisfactory answer.

I have already answered this, see above. You are not prosecuting at the Old Bailey, so quit the melodrama, it's quite embarrassing.

Never claimed I was. But if your answers don't satisfy I shall ask again.

You are mischaracterising events. In other words, you are either dishonest or ignorant. It is not my job to correct either state.

You said he chickened out. If it mischaracterises events feel free to correct it here.

I've already addressed this issue. Are you making some kind of point? Because its relevance to my argument frankly eludes me.

Yes, it does seem to be. That will be my answer... You can't see the relevance and therefore can not understand it. I am afraid that "credible" case of yours degrades further.

I'll remind you, this is legal proof we're talking.

Historic actually.

I am not required to solve the case completely, although the closer I can approach that obviously the happier I would be.

No, but you are required to at the very least offer a coherent theory.
Start with the simple bit. Wallace was in the room at the time of the murder. Why? What was he doing?

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness you know.

Which has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

This is such a stupid confusion of process and priority that I actually feel a bit ashamed for you. Do you seriously think that a conversation on the JREF is part of the scrutiny process that forensic evidence must undergo?

No. Nor did I claim it to be. I referred to the due scrutiny any sceptic gives evidence offered to them. If you have been arguing against anything else, despite my pointing this out several times in the conversation, I will accept your retractions and apology.

That is what you are apparently saying, in so many words.

Nope. I would have hoped you picked that up from my warning against your telling individuals it had passed their scrutiny. You do not get to dictate what evidence others accept, or the weight they apply to it.
Again, if you misunderstood for many, many posts, feel free to apologise.

Actually, you'll probably find I was talking to two different people making difference demands. I know that one or two did indeed assert that I was required to solve the case completely with no loose ends left over.

Not in any post I can find. This was pointed out at the time.

I thought that was ridiculous and I said so (it now seems to have been dropped as a demand).

It never was a demand. This was clarified after your misunderstanding, yet you repeat it here. Again.

So I would guess that you are (probably due to your own human fallibility) conflating two separate arguments.

No. I am responding to the claims you made in several posts.

Or, given that I am attempting to conduct multiple conversations with an ever-changing cast of self-appointed debunkers, it is entirely possible that I have misaddressed an objection to the wrong person.

Or you are in such a habit of claiming exaggerated demands are against you that you have missed a little of the humour you are so proud of in your own posts...

I concede that that is possible, but I UTTERLY REJECT as deliberate mischaracterisation your misrepresentation of this as some species of dishonesty, if indeed it happened as you describe it in the first place, which I quite frankly doubt and do not expect you will attempt to prove.

You will note it happened in this very post. More than one reasonable requests were restated by you as unreasonable demands.

I'm not interested in your mischievous and vexatious complaints. You haven't proven a single one of your mischaracterisations, and I am confident that you could not do so even if you tried. Feel free to prove me wrong. You'd like that after all. But don't expect to be taken seriously because of your own bluff and bluster.

So far you have misrepresented several in this post. Elsewhere you claim a demand was made to make a case that ties all loose ends. You consistently pretended that I was suggesting a failure to match results was a negation, long LONG after you were informed that was not my point... It has been proven many times over.

?

You claimed you would report something in the same post you claimed you had reported it. Did you mean the latter? And again, you replied that my point was irrelevant. I was pointing out that I was sorry to hear that you thought your theory withstanding scrutiny was irrelevant. After all, I assumed your claim to want critique was genuine.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Don't you mean to state that you "cite" the work done by others? and affidavits are one thing, cross examination is another, and afaik none of this stuff you bring up has been vetted by anyone other than the individuals who wish to believe it.

Hunt's death-bed confession should be viewed in the same light as Santo Trafficante and Carlos Marcello's prison confession, as in -0- credibility.

http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/deathbed-confession-who-really-killed-jfk/2012/07/02

Here's a list of confessions from your side of the street - mix and match 'em collect them all!

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

You'd probably be surprised how many weirdos come out of the woodwork and confess to crimes they didn't commit, and I'm willing to bet that JFK pulled more than most.

So here is the thing:

Why does Hunts confession not include Factor? Why does it differ from Factors events?
Why does Factor describe events that are not possible within the context of the evidence?
Assuming Factors confession was a grounds to validate the Wallace print what were Wallace, Factor, et al, doing in the TSBD while LHO fired the only bullets to strike JFK?
Why is only one figure visible in the film footage of the TSBD window?
Why is Wallace the only name given in the list of murders attributed to LBJ?

To say the confessions (each of which fails on its own terms) support the fingerprint is a fallacy. They do not support each other. They offer no explanation of the print.

So lets piece it together. Assume Factor was in any way truthful. He gets paid for his shooting skills and is recruited by Mac. They go to the TSBD with LHO and a woman. Then...
What?
He says they all shot timed shots from the window so the nine shots sounded like three. But this makes no sense. We have three sharpshooters and only one is visible? Only one set of bullets find a mark? The other six shots vanish with out trace?

So the obvious conclusion is LHO did the shooting, and the others...er... moved boxes and kept in hiding so none were seen by anybody else in the TSBD?

LHO and Wallace slip away, only to double back so LHO could find his pistol, shoot Tippit and get arrested?
How did they get into, and out of the building with out being seen?

So why was Factor recruited? To not have a rifle? To not do the shooting? We know he is wrong about the number of rounds fired, because the physical evidence contradicts him. So why believe his story at all?

And with out that confession the print, even if it were beyond any doubt (which the last few pages have reminded us it is not), is not proof of the idea Wallace was the murderer. It would be evidence Wallace was there, but not that he was a part of the crime.

So where is the theory that tells us what Wallace was doing there? How his print ties him to any activity that aided Oswald in the murder. We know explicitly the theory does not include holding the murder weapon, the only weapon that shot JFK, so what part did Wallace play?

The foundations of the claim are severly flawed, and those flaws have not been addressed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm wondering which CTwinkie book will be brought up as worth discussing the next time this obvious troll comes by?

Who Shot JFK? By Ramsey, part of the Pocket Essentials Guide range. The vast majority of the claims so far directly reflected this book.

If the pattern keeps up we will probably see a lot of evidence for LBJ's corruption being mistaken for evidence he would have JFK murdered. The same LBJ who made it clear he wouldn't seek a full second term. Maybe with talk of the Plumbers and Watergate mixed in as well.

There will probably be that usual story that LBJs mistress was told that "The Irish Mafia <cuss word>" would not be in LBJs way after Texas. An unfortunate "wont somebody rid me of this troublesome priest" that would be seen purely as political ruthlessness if it weren't for the assassination.

What will be missing will be any coherent theory that suggests how Wallace and LBJ arranged for LHO to shoot JFK that fits with the physical evidence to hand. Nothing at all, other than a confession with no credibility and a self interested claim by somebody who seems to have just assumed that LBJ must have been responsible for the assassination and lumped that in with other accusations.

 

[tsig]

Actually, I think I have gone far enough with the Wallace print ID issue.

I have two confirmed matches made by experienced examiners, one of which exists permanently as an affidavit, the other of which would be producible by calling the publicity-shy expert as a witness under oath (so on pain of perjury, he would have to repeat his finding, which is as good as Darby's affidavit in effect), and it has not been debunked by its only (supposedly serious) field-experienced public critic so far.

So if I choose to pursue this case any further in this forum, about which possible progression I am not currently decided, I am going to fan out to consider other areas of the case against LBJ. I haven't really properly scrutinised Hunt's deathbed confession, for example, I have merely accepted it on board because it comes from a high-level spook whose name repeatedly surfaces in JFK lore and implicates LBJ. That's all I really understand about it, to be quite honest. Could all be bollocks or totally unverifiable for all I know, so I suppose I really ought to find out for ethical reasons if nothing else really.

I gather that Hunt's confession involves the claim that LBJ co-conspirators included CIA agents (but presumably not the CIA considered as an entity), and that is a fascinating-sounding area for discussion and critique. Moreover, I would be coming to it more or less blind, so unlike the Wallace ID rigmarole, which is essentially a re-hash but with my own new FBI protocol standard stirred in for thickening, it would represent a completely new learning curve for me personally, which is rather appealing. And I am willing to bet that, although there would doubtless be wailing and gnashing of teeth from the multitude of Randi-ites, they would probably welcome the taste of fresh meat too.

But that can wait at least until I have slept on the matter. Sweet dreams, playmates.

We are waiting with baited breath but something smells fishy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In other words your arguments having failed dismally you shall jump to something else and pretend otherwise.

We shall never know how the wound in the Wallace sample was accounted for, and exactly how precise the print can be given that the changes in his fingerprint Wallace would have had between the JFK shootings and his sample obtained. These were noted when the print was first "identified" and not addressed here.

We shall never know what it was the chap speculated about the FBI crime labs failure to match. He told us he thought he could explain it, if not prove his theory, yet supplied no theory. So this too remains unaddressed.

We shall never know what evidence there is Hoffman "chickened out". So we shall know how this conclusion was reached or how this rude slur can be justified. It too will remain unaddressed.

We shall never get an answer to the timeline of the print. Assuming it were actually proven as a "solid fact" we would never know what evidence there is that it was left before, not after the shooting.

We shall never have anything, other than his personal incredulity, as evidence against any other equally fanciful explanation for Wallace being in the crime scene after the shooting. Because apparently a man capable of orchestrating several murders is incapable of other suspicious activities.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm wondering which CTwinkie book will be brought up as worth discussing the next time this obvious troll comes by?

Given the extremely closed-minded bias evident in such a remark, I'm not sure responding would do any good, but, just in case, here are some "CTwinkie" books, most of them written within the last 10 years, that you might consider actually breaking down and reading:

Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, by Dr. Richard D. Mahoney, a former JFK scholar at the University of Massachusetts and a former visiting professor at Oxford University. Yes, Dr. Mahoney argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History, by Dr. Joan Mellen, currently a professor at Temple University. Yes, Dr. Mellen argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. She also destroys the lone-gunman smearing of Jim Garrison.

Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime, by Dr. G. Robert Blakely, former chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Yes, Dr. Blakely argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, by Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a former NASA scientist who also worked as a research physicist at the Naval Surface Warfare Center and who now works on renewable energy research for the Bellatrix Energy Corporation. Yes, Dr. Chambers argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Among other things, Dr. Chambers reviews the available evidence on the HSCA acoustical evidence and concludes that the dictabelt recording does contain impulses caused by four gunshots.

Real Answers, by Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel of the HSCA and a former Department of Justice organized crime prosecutor who later became assistant regional counsel in charge of special investigations for the Department of Energy. Yes, Mr. Cornwell argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Cover-Up, by Stewart Galanor, a professor mathematics who has published widely acclaimed research on calculus and Riemann's Rearrangement Theorem. Yes, Mr. Galanor concludes that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. You might also read Professor Galanor's review of Posner's Case Closed titled "The Art of Misrepresenting Evidence."

Enemy of the Truth: Myth, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination, Ms. Sherry Fiester, a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. Yes, Ms. Fiester concludes that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

You guys really should drop your everyone-who-disagres-with-me-is-a-kook posturing when it comes to the JFK case.

 

[I Ratant]

You'd be surprised how many of us have those books, read them, and tossed them at the wall.
"Wallbangers" I calls'em.
The 'net festers with absurdities from the conspiracy sewers also.
The common script for these is to work backwards from the author's fixation, usually "someone else shot JFK", and deftly and not so deftly ignoring reality, "prove" their particular whipping boy didit... referencing the collection of "proven" shooters shows this.
Your guru Griffith does the stereotypical presentation of wild assed guessing.
.
Your statement identifying a Mafia person at the Depository... what is that source?
There is nothing about that in the WCR, which identifies ALL the persons there that day.
Which orifice was that pulled from?

 

[I Ratant]

Because I don't think people should set out to debunk I should ignore the information?

...our theory withstanding scrutiny was irrelevant. After all, I assumed your claim to want critique was genuine.

.
Please, some relief!
Sentence by sentence refutation of trolling garf is not needed.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You'd be surprised how many of us have those books, read them, and tossed them at the wall.
"Wallbangers" I calls'em.
The 'net festers with absurdities from the conspiracy sewers also.
The common script for these is to work backwards from the author's fixation, usually "someone else shot JFK", and deftly and not so deftly ignoring reality, "prove" their particular whipping boy didit... referencing the collection of "proven" shooters shows this.
Your guru Griffith does the stereotypical presentation of wild assed guessing.
.
Your statement identifying a Mafia person at the Depository... what is that source? There is nothing about that in the WCR, which identifies ALL the persons there that day. Which orifice was that pulled from?

Oh, my goodness! Wow! So because the Warren Commission did not mention that Mafia man Brading was caught leaving the Dal-Tex Building soon after the shooting, you pose your question in such a condescending, dismissive tone?!

Gee, no wonder you tossed those scholarly JFK books against the wall! They contained so much information that the Warren Commission didn't bring to light! And we all know what a thorough, exhaustive, unbiased investigation the WC conducted, right?

Now, I have to wonder why you would need to ask me for a source on the fact that Brading was caught coming out of the Dal-Tex Building soon after the shooting. So apparently this is news to you? How can you not already know about this?

By the way, not only was Brading seen leaving that building after the shooting, but he was arrested for "suspicious" behavior.

And, oh by the way, Brading also "just happened" to check into the Cabana Motel in Dallas on November 20, the day before Jack Ruby met Lawrence Myers at the motel. Gosh! Don't that beat all? Let me guess: Just another amazing coincidence, right?

Sources? Well, attorney Mark North discusses Brading's arrest and his suspicious pre-assassination activities in his book Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy. Kirk Wilson discusses these issues in Unsolved: Great Mysteries Of The 20th Century. So does organized crime and firearms expert Michael Newton in his book Mr. Mob: The Life and Crimes of Moe Dalitz.

Finally, Mike Griffith is not my JFK "guru." I am Mike Griffith.

 

[BStrong]

Given the extremely closed-minded bias evident in such a remark, I'm not sure responding would do any good, but, just in case, here are some "CTwinkie" books, most of them written within the last 10 years, that you might consider actually breaking down and reading:

Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, by Dr. Richard D. Mahoney, a former JFK scholar at the University of Massachusetts and a former visiting professor at Oxford University. Yes, Dr. Mahoney argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History, by Dr. Joan Mellen, currently a professor at Temple University. Yes, Dr. Mellen argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. She also destroys the lone-gunman smearing of Jim Garrison.

Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime, by Dr. G. Robert Blakely, former chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Yes, Dr. Blakely argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, by Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a former NASA scientist who also worked as a research physicist at the Naval Surface Warfare Center and who now works on renewable energy research for the Bellatrix Energy Corporation. Yes, Dr. Chambers argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Among other things, Dr. Chambers reviews the available evidence on the HSCA acoustical evidence and concludes that the dictabelt recording does contain impulses caused by four gunshots.

Real Answers, by Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel of the HSCA and a former Department of Justice organized crime prosecutor who later became assistant regional counsel in charge of special investigations for the Department of Energy. Yes, Mr. Cornwell argues that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Cover-Up, by Stewart Galanor, a professor mathematics who has published widely acclaimed research on calculus and Riemann's Rearrangement Theorem. Yes, Mr. Galanor concludes that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. You might also read Professor Galanor's review of Posner's Case Closed titled "The Art of Misrepresenting Evidence."

Enemy of the Truth: Myth, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination, Ms. Sherry Fiester, a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. Yes, Ms. Fiester concludes that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

You guys really should drop your everyone-who-disagres-with-me-is-a-kook posturing when it comes to the JFK case.

I prefer American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's a Rover, all by James Ellroy.

I prefer my fictional reading to be well written.

As to book #1 on your list, if you go far enough back in this or the other JFK CT thread I have written a couple of post explaining how the acoustic evidence and the number of shots reported by ear-witnesses isn't reliable.

 

[I Ratant]

I referenced the pages in the WCR that listed all the persons at the TSBD.
Your guy isn't there.
Neither is a 'fingerprint' from Wallace.
All of the fingerprints have been identified.
One -palmprint- is unidentified.
Fact.
Any additions to these are fictional.

 

[I Ratant]

I prefer American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's a Rover, all by James Ellroy.

I prefer my fictional reading to be well written.

As to book #1 on your list, if you go far enough back in this or the other JFK CT thread I have written a couple of post explaining how the acoustic evidence and the number of shots reported by ear-witnesses isn't reliable.

.
The acoustic "evidence" has been truly related to an open microphone at the Trade Mart, a couple miles from Dealey Plaza... and that is even remarked -in- the Dictaphone data.
It's too bad the Conspiracy Forum on Compuserve from 1992 hasn't been archived.
I recall discussing all this with Griffith, Tony Marsh, Barb Junkarinnen, Duke Lane, Jack White, David Lifton, Todd Wayne Vaughn..
Any JFK library has to start with the WCR... and then "Case Closed" by Posner, and "Pictures of the Pain" by Trask.
Then the curious can try to relate any of the Twinkie books to the realities in these 3.
MOF, it was looking at a publication by Livingstone that got my curiosity going.. he presented an image of the drawing of the back of JFK's head.. the actual photos not being "removed" from the National Archives yet... and said there was NO wound to the back of the head... while that wound WAS visible in the drawing he was using!
I then purchased the WCR, and it's been uphill ever since, trudging out of the sewers of conspiracy.
"POP" is quite useful for its display of many of the photos of the event... with real descriptions.. Comparing the descriptions of the same photos in "The Killing of a President" by Groden is quite illuminating, as to the subterfuge and just plain ignorance displayed in that book!

 

[Tomtomkent]

The books like that I read I found entertaining and interesting, but not always truthful. Not deliberately, but not every author went back to the WCR for their data or failed to carry out their own research to confirm data. Once a misconception had been printed twice it seemed impossible to be rid of it, as it would keep being repeated as fact with out checking.

For what its worth the Ramsey book is not awful, but it works better as a history of conspiracy theories on the subject than it does as an attempt to prove a conspiracy.

 

[HSienzant]

WHo said anything about an Oak tree. Not me! Did you actually READ my post, if not then read this... I SAID NOTHING ABOUT AN OAK TREE DEFLECTING THE BULLET.

Yes, and that's the problem: You said there was no such theory, implying the traffic light as the only such deflection theory: "Firstly, the theory is that it deflected off a traffic light support arm, not the Oak tree." I corrected that, pointing out that the WC Report even mentions such a theory. In fact, the oak tree deflection predates any traffic light deflection by over four decades.

Furthermore, I am not a newbie to this. I was 8 years old when Kennedy was shot (I doubt if you were even alive) and I have followed the story ever since I can remember.

I am older than you by four years, hopefully killing that theory of yours.

For many years I believed that JFK was a victim of a conspiracy, that there was another gunman (if not more) in Dealey Plaza that day. I held those beliefs firmly until about 10 - 15 years ago, but after having read numerous books and seen numerous documentaries on the subject, I came slowly to understand that LHO was the only gunman.

Doesn't make you immune to error. You were wrong to claim or imply there was no Oak tree theory.

A lone gunman is the simplest answer, and while there is some vague evidence that there could have been others, the overwhelming evidence is that Oswald acted alone. Most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would prove the lone gunman scenario could not have happened.

What vague evidence is there that "there could have been others"?

I do not deny the possibility (however unlikely it might seem) that he may have been acting under orders, but there is no evidence of this, and no evidence indicating who might have given those orders.

There's not only no evidence of any orders, there's no evidence he could have even received any such orders. He took no calls at work as far as is known, nor at the rooming house where he was staying. In fact, the one time someone tried to reach him at the rooming house (Ruth Paine), she was told no one by the name of Lee Oswald lived there (because Oswald had registered as O.H.Lee, and neglected to tell Marina or Ruth of that fact).

The Warren Commission suggests one good reason he used that alias. Are you familiar with it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you read this thread, and the predecessor it has been discussed.

Even if the identification were not shaky, and was as ironclad as the CT lobby tend to claim, it does not prove Wallace was there for any foul means. For a start there is no reason to believe the print was from the shooting, the window for which usable latent prints can be retrieved from cardboard, such as the box the print was found on is small so it is more likely the print was left some time after the shooting during the investigation.

Given that the CT lobby tend to portray Mac Wallace as a private fixer and trouble shooter for LBJ, the limited time frame for the print, and the nature of the events it is possible the print was left during the shooting, but to accept this we would first have to discount the most obvious explanation: That immediately after the murder of the president the vice president sent a trusted troubleshooter to unofficially report on the investigation.

Neither are strictly legitimate reasons, and both rely on a LOT of shaky CT "evidence" to be considered kosher, but to jump directly to "Mac Wallace shot JFK" with out any supporting evidence beyond the print, or even "there was a conspiracy" is silly. It ignores the majority of evidence in favour of a single outlaying piece of evidence for which alternate explanations can be offered.

One minor correction: I think you meant the president sent a trusted troubleshooter.

 

[Tomtomkent]

One minor correction: I think you meant the president sent a trusted troubleshooter.

Depending on time of day he was President or about to be sworn in I guess so... Thanks for the correction.

 

[HSienzant]

Forgive me for barging in, I was never one for formal introductions.

I would like, with your permission, to return to the Mac Wallace fingerprint issue, which surfaced briefly a couple of pages ago and was inadequately dealt with by both camps in this discussion.

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.

Source?

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.

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.

Either the photocopies are adequate or they are not. If they are adequate to show the matches, then they are adequate to show the mismatches. So they are therefore not Mac Wallace's fingerprints.

If they aren't adequate to show the matches, then it hasn't been proven they show Mac Wallace's fingerprints.

It appears you are attempting to eliminate the mismatches but retain the ID from the same source document.

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.

Or they might not. You haven't shown beyond sufficient doubt that this is Mac Wallace's fingerprint. If you wish to hold up this fingerprint as evidence of conspiracy, you must first prove that it Wallace's. Merely suggesting it might be is insufficient.

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.

One such non-match is sufficient. Two is overwhelming evidence that it isn't Wallace's fingerprint.

.

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).

Please quote the language that says three or more discrepancies do not constitute a negative result. I couldn't find it.

I did find this, which I presume is the source you are referencing:
http://scafo.org/library/100502.html

And within that document, this claim: "FBI fingerprint experts state unequivocally that any two fingerprints possessing as many as 14 identical ridge characteristics, the number which the defense witness acknowledged when he testified concerning the fingerprint in question, would certainly contain no dissimilarities in the ridge formation."

They are saying that there will be no dissimilarities, not a possibility of three or more, in valid matches.

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

Source?

So, the task for the nonspiracists is therefore to calculate the odds of an unidentified individual whose fingerprints matched (to a court-admissible degree) those of a convicted murderer (Wallace) with a personal relationship with LBJ (the person who gained most from the murder in question), just happening to be around (with an innocent reason for being there) in order to touch key crime scene evidence at around the same time that the crime was happening.

You are alleging a lot of stuff above. None of it more than allegations.

Further, I remind you that Oswald's prints are definitely on those boxes. While you allege the boxes at the window are 'key crime scene evidence' concerning Wallace's supposed print, how much weight, if any, do you put on the 'key crime scene evidence' of Oswald's prints being on the boxes in that corner?

Personally, I would hesitate to assign a numerical value to such odds, but I am willing to bet that they are sufficiently astronomical to make 'coincidence' seem a very very poor explanation indeed.

Except there's no solid evidence you have produced here that this is Mac Wallace's print. You've merely alleged such evidence.

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.

Go for it. Let me know when you actually have identified the print.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...LHO's rifle? It is not part of my claim that he [Mac Wallace - Hank] ever touched it.

Well, then you have a major problem, since the ballistics evidence points to Oswald's rifle and only to Oswald's rifle. And only one rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination - Oswald's rifle - your thesis of Wallace's involvement in the assassination seems to have a fatal flaw. Was Wallace on the sixth floor solely as an advisor to Oswald?

Hank