Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed

[John Mytton]

The FBI memo doesn’t “establish” anything. It’s just a claim.

The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.



The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.



The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.



JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.



The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.



The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.



JohnM

   

[John Mytton]

John,

That doesn't count.

Iacoletti, et al, can't even discern a print.

It's just a big blob, and it wasn't videotaped and notarized in triplicate.

You made it up!

--  MWT 

PS  And why does the white spot in the middle disappear, huh ??!!??!!!!!!!

You have proved nothing.

You made it all up.

You made it all up.

YOU MADE IT ALL UP!

You ... you ... you ... CHARLATAN, you!

/s

Hi Thomas, Iirc "Iacoletti" or whatever his name is has already argued that the 5 random marks could be from another random rifle??, that the blob could be from anywhere and that Hoover must have lied, etc etc. He knows how devastating this evidence is for his client so like a sleazy defence attorney he's willing to try every trick in the book, sad!

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?

You're kidding, right? You really must be kidding. We find prints that reveal early drafts of the production of the backyard rifle photos, and you ask what the most damning of the prints have to do with the photos' authenticity?!

Sorry but John Mytton has destroyed your chin argument and he did so with little effort.

No, he's just seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. He might want to go talk with all the photographic experts who have noted the clear difference between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin in genuine pictures of him. 

Malcolm Thompson never had the actual photos and negative(s) at his disposal. He ended up deferring to the conclusions of the HSCA panel of photographic analysis experts.

Not quite. He did not buy their conclusion about the chin. You don't need the original prints and negatives to see the clear indications of fakery in the photos. The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the impossible shadows seen in the backyard pics, as I document:

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm

And the PEP didn't even try to explain how a cheap handheld camera supposedly passed back and forth between shots could have produced three pictures whose backgrounds are so nearly identical that the panel could only detect the differences by photogrammetric measurement. Such an astonishing sameness of backgrounds would be difficult to achieve even by using a tripod to steady the camera. And it's not like the PEP experts were not aware of this problem; they just couldn't explain it. So they ignored it.

Another issue the PEP punted on was the absence of the ring in 133-A. Why would anyone take off their ring for one picture and put it back on for the two other pictures, while being handed the camera back and forth to advance the film? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody does that.

The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle. And yes, it raises questions. Ones that you are unwilling or unable to address. Like, how did Oswald's palm print get on the barrel if he had never had possession of the rifle?

The FBI memo "establishes" no such thing. How many times was the FBI caught making false claims about evidence in the case? Guess what happened when the HSCA wanted to test the memo's claim by examining the original palmprint, which was given to the FBI? Take a guess. Just take a guess. Have you guessed yet? Here you go:

The FBI told the HSCA that the palmprint had been "misplaced." They said they couldn't find it. "Gee, we know that palmprint was one of the most historic pieces of evidence in criminal history, but, gulp, we have misplaced it, and it would take a 'mammoth effort' to find it." The HSCA never did get it.

A photo is not required for a chain of evidence.

Uh, photographing a print before you lift it is standard procedure, just in case you botch the lift. Day admitted that it was DPD standard procedure to do this. So tell us again why he took photos of the trigger-guard partial prints but no photos of the palmprint, even though he had hours to do so?  Why did he lie and claim that he didn't take pics of the palmprint because he was being rushed, when in fact he had several hours to photograph the palmprint?

Latona found no trace of a print on the barrel on Nov 23 because Carl Day had removed all traces of it. Day thought later that he had left some traces of it but he was wrong.

Oh, Lt. Day was "wrong"?! So not only was he wrong about the palmprint still being visible when he handed over the rifle, but he was wrong about there being fingerprint powder on the barrel?! Uh-huh. You bet.

Of course, nobody wanted to explain how the print could vanish from the barrel between Dallas and Washington, especially given the fact that it was under the wooden stock and thus could not be touched unless the stock were removed.

And how would all trace of print processing have vanished from the barrel? Hey? How could that have happened? Recall that Latona said the barrel did not even look like it had been processed for prints.

The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.

Uh, no, Day reviewed the palmprint on 11/26. The print did not get to FBI HQ until 11/29.

If anyone's interested, one of the most thorough examinations of the palmprint claim is Sylvia Meagher's section on this in Accessories After the Fact (pp. 120-127). A complete readable and downloadable PDF of the book is available at the Internet Archive website:

https://archive.org/details/AccessoriesAfterTheFact

[John Iacoletti]

Hi Thomas, Iirc "Iacoletti" or whatever his name is has already argued that the 5 random marks could be from another random rifle??

I never made such an argument.

a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.
b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.
c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".
d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks.  Something is amiss here.  Latona got the boxes (which are on the same list) on the 27th.  Why did the magic partial palmprint not show up until the 29th?

[Tim Nickerson]

You're kidding, right? You really must be kidding. We find prints that reveal early drafts of the production of the backyard rifle photos, and you ask what the most damning of the prints have to do with the photos' authenticity?!

Nope. I'm dead serious. What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves? The actual photos and negative(s) were examined thoroughly down to the minutest detail by a panel of 21 experts in photographic analysis. The camera that took those photos was used in that investigation. How does something outside of those original photos and negative(s) alter the conclusion that the photos themselves were authentic and unaltered?

No, he's just seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. He might want to go talk with all the photographic experts who have noted the clear difference between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin in genuine pictures of him. 

Not quite. He did not buy their conclusion about the chin. You don't need the original prints and negatives to see the clear indications of fakery in the photos. The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the impossible shadows seen in the backyard pics, as I document:

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm

And the PEP didn't even try to explain how a cheap handheld camera supposedly passed back and forth between shots could have produced three pictures whose backgrounds are so nearly identical that the panel could only detect the differences by photogrammetric measurement. Such an astonishing sameness of backgrounds would be difficult to achieve even by using a tripod to steady the camera. And it's not like the PEP experts were not aware of this problem; they just couldn't explain it. So they ignored it.

Another issue the PEP punted on was the absence of the ring in 133-A. Why would anyone take off their ring for one picture and put it back on for the two other pictures, while being handed the camera back and forth to advance the film? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody does that.

You're still clinging to your chin nonsense? I'll leave the backyard photo stuff to John Mytton. He will slap you silly. In fact, he already has.  Thompson may have had a problem with the chin issue but he did ultimately defer to the HSCA conclusions on the photos.

The FBI memo "establishes" no such thing.

The FBI memo , together with Liebeler's HSCA testimony, and the graphic provided here by John Mytton establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.

How many times was the FBI caught making false claims about evidence in the case? Guess what happened when the HSCA wanted to test the memo's claim by examining the original palmprint, which was given to the FBI? Take a guess. Just take a guess. Have you guessed yet? Here you go:

The FBI told the HSCA that the palmprint had been "misplaced." They said they couldn't find it. "Gee, we know that palmprint was one of the most historic pieces of evidence in criminal history, but, gulp, we have misplaced it, and it would take a 'mammoth effort' to find it." The HSCA never did get it.

Oh really? Where in the HSCA Volumes can we find that little piece of information? How, pray tell, would the failure of the FBI to find the lift in 1978 prove that they made false claims? And you might want to take a look at the following:

From the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF VINCENT J. SCALICE:

The following inked impressions were examined and compared at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978.
-
-
10) Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The HSCA never did get it eh?

Uh, photographing a print before you lift it is standard procedure, just in case you botch the lift. Day admitted that it was DPD standard procedure to do this. So tell us again why he took photos of the trigger-guard partial prints but no photos of the palmprint, even though he had hours to do so?  Why did he lie and claim that he didn't take pics of the palmprint because he was being rushed, when in fact he had several hours to photograph the palmprint?

Photographing a print before you lift it may be standard procedure but it's got nothing to do with chain of custody. Day did not lie about anything. He was very busy all day. When Doughty came and told him to get the items of evidence packed up to be handed over to the FBI, Day had yet to around to photographing the print. He was rushed.

Oh, Lt. Day was "wrong"?! So not only was he wrong about the palmprint still being visible when he handed over the rifle, but he was wrong about there being fingerprint powder on the barrel?! Uh-huh. You bet.

Of course, nobody wanted to explain how the print could vanish from the barrel between Dallas and Washington, especially given the fact that it was under the wooden stock and thus could not be touched unless the stock were removed.

And how would all trace of print processing have vanished from the barrel? Hey? How could that have happened? Recall that Latona said the barrel did not even look like it had been processed for prints.

Yes, Day was wrong. It happens. As for how no trace of the print or processing were left on the barrel, you'll have to ask those who make their living in the field of fingerprint identification. But it's an undeniable and irrefutable fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's palm print was lifted off of the underside of the barrel of his rifle.

Uh, no, Day reviewed the palmprint on 11/26. The print did not get to FBI HQ until 11/29.

Uhh..yes. The FBI did receive the palm print on Nov 26. Unless you're going to somehow be able to show that Vincent Drain was not a member of the FBI on Nov 26.1963.

[John Mytton]

I never made such an argument.

a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.
b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.
c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".
d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.

a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.

LOL!

b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.

LOL!

c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".

LOL!

d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.

LOLOLOL!!!

JohnM