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

[John Mytton]

(especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the HSCA PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.

"virtual sameness" wtf?

It's physically impossible to take one photo and change the perspective so that it will create the massive number of parallax changes as seen all three backyard photos. By definition every backyard photo was taken from a different position.



JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Then you are not to be taken seriously, either because you just don't have the capacity to grasp the significance of the DPD prints or because you will not be honest about them.

Well, again, as even the Houston Post acknowledged, they show stages of manipulation in the production of the backyard photos. It's that simple. If you can't or won't grasp that, then, again, you are not to be taken seriously.

SMH. You mean "the actual photos and negatives" that emerged from the manipulation process uncovered by the 1992 discovery of the DPD prints of the photos?

And I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the HSCA PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.

You sure about that? Why couldn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM was not cropped but the others were? 133-A-DEM is the photo that magically turned up at DeMohrenschildt's house. Why were the others cropped but not this one?

Why didn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM's resolution is stunningly higher than that of the others? Indeed 133-A-DEM is so pixel-heavy, so high quality, that you can read the print on the newspaper the figure is holding. How do you get such a huge variation in picture resolution from the kind of camera that was supposedly used? It's not like the camera had different pixel/resolution settings. It was a low-budget, basic camera.

SMH. Well . . . uh . . . umm . . . if the "something outside of those original photos" happens to be prints that were made in the production of those "original photos and negatives," and if those prints show that those "original photos and negatives" are composites that were made by having someone else strike the needed poses, then by cutting out the silhouette of the person's image, and then by pasting a body and Oswald's head where the first person's figure was--that's how that "something else" alters the conclusion that the photos are "authentic and unaltered."

And, again, I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the PEP did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.

Thompson simply chose not to get into a public argument with the HSCA. Go read his full interview. Even after he "deferred," he made it clear that he did not buy the PEP's lame explanation of the chin problem.

Why should we care about what the Houston Post "acknowledged"?  What makes them experts on photo analysis? It doesn't alter the fact that the Backyard photos were confirmed to be authentic by the 21 members of the HSCA photographic analysis panel. As I said, I'll leave the Backyard photo issue for John Mytton to deal with. Photo analysis is definitely not my forte. Neither is it yours. I'm terrible at it. I had trouble being able to say for sure that, in a film frame taken of the sixth floor of the TSBD,  Capt Fritz wasn't actually standing on the long paper sack in the corner of the sniper's nest. I bet that you would too.

Then why are you unable to explain the glaring holes in the fable of the palmprint's alleged discovery and transmission?

There aren't any holes in the palmprint's documented discovery or transmission.

It's not in the HSCA volumes. This information was revealed in a memo that was included in the batch of JFK assassination-related documents that were released in 2017:

"Another revelation comes from a July 1978 memo to an attorney on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations: The FBI was unable to locate the original fingerprints lifted from the rifle found at the sniper's perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. . . .

"Top FBI officials told House investigators that finding the prints would be a 'mammoth research effort.'" (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/12/16/new-jfk-files-show-fbi-misplaced-oswald-s-fingerprints-and-cia-opened-his-mail-and-john-steinbeck-s/)

Where is that memo? Let's see it. Notice that the memo was dated July 1978. That was after Scalice had examined the palm print. Also, perhaps more importantly, notice that the article refers to fingerprints. Multiple fingerprints, not a single latent palm print.

Umm, did you miss the part where he said he examined "enlarged negatives" of the palmprint? He did not examine the palmprint itself, but negatives of pictures taken of the palmprint that belatedly arrived on 11/29. Do you understand the difference?

So, no, the HSCA did not get the original palmprint from the FBI.

I did miss that part.   I must have been having a rough day myself.    Because I also missed this part:

9. Lift from the rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano  serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.

So, there you have it, Not only did the HSCA get the original palm print lift, they were able to have it positively matched to Oswald's rifle as well.  Which was just a confirmation of what Latona et al had done 14 years prior. John Mytton has allowed us to see it for ourselves.

Scalice had the actual palm print itself to determine if it was Oswald's or not but for for his own purposes he chose to use enlarged negatives of the print to make the identification.

This mythical nonsense was debunked decades ago. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll quote from my article "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?":

"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.)" (https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm)

Saying that it was debunked is not the same as showing that it was debunked. Nothing in that excerpt of yours challenges what I said. By the time that Day was told to pack everything up he just had not got around to photographing the print and he felt rushed to get all of the items properly prepared for pick up.There's no way to debunk it. All you have is speculation.

And the Earth is flat, right? You take Day's word on every other single point regarding the print, but not on these two statements because they indicate the emperor has no clothes.

Explain to me how Day would have been "wrong" about seeing part of the palmprint on the barrel after he had lifted it? I mean, did he dream it? Was he drunk? Was he "seeing things"? This was a very specific item in a very specific situation. Either he could see that the basic outlines of the print remained on the barrel or he could not. What could he have mistaken for the outline of a palmprint on the dark rifle barrel?

And fingerprint powder is designed to adhere to the object to which it is being applied so that it can provide a "print" of whatever is on the part of the object where it has been applied. But you are saying that somehow, someway every speck, every trace of fingerprint powder magically vanished from the barrel during between the time it was handed over to the FBI on and the time it reached FBI HQ a few hours later. Amazing! Poof! Gone! Even though it was under the wooden stock and could not be touched!

Or maybe Latona saw no fingerprint powder because Day didn't process that part of the barrel for prints because it was under the wooden stock and he logically assumed that no prints would have been made there during the shooting.

Why are you focusing on minor inconsistencies in Day's foggy four month old recollection instead of dealing with the elephant in the room? That elephant being the lift itself and it having been positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Day's recollections on some minor details were faulty. No question about it.  However, none of it negates the fact that he lifted the palm print off of the barrel of the rifle. Yes, the print had been under the wooden stock and would not have been placed there by normal handling of the rifle. However, Oswald had disassembled the rifle before bringing it to work. Probably the night before.

I'm reminded of the old saying "It's not what you don't know that worries me, it's what you 'know for sure' that just ain't so." Even Vincent Bugliosi, the king of WC true believers, acknowledged that the palmprint did not arrive at the FBI until 11/29:

"Five days later, on November 29, the card containing the palm print that Day had lifted on the night of November 22, along with the notation "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766"--the serial number of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano--reached the FBI crime lab." (Reclaiming History, p. 801)

Go read Lt. Day's WC testimony. Day detailed each item that he gave to Agent Drain on 11/26. He even photographed them. The photo of the items is CE 738. Perhaps you are confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle. The cardboard box palmprint was included in the items that Day turned over to Drain on 11/26, not the latent palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle.

Latona never got the print until the 29th. However, the FBI got it on the 26th. And no, I'm not confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint taken from the rifle.

CE 738 does not include all of the evidence that Drain took possession of that day. Those are the items that he picked up at 2 PM. The piece of cardboard doesn't appear to be in that photo. According to Day, it was picked up by Drain at 11:45 that night. The lift of the partial palm print and the cardboard boxes would have been picked up at the time as well.

[Tim Nickerson]

Evidently your only way out because an old print would also destroy the idea of the rifle having been recently disassembled.

How would the print being an old one destroy the idea of the rifle having been recently disassembled? An old print just means that Oswald disassembled it sometime in the past as well. It says nothing about whether the rifle was recently disassembled or not.

To help the commission out Latona had to "infer" that the lift had removed any trace of the rifle being processes -- LOL

"This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle. "

The provenance of that lift sucks bit time, the only direct link between Oswald and the rifle was unaccounted for for FOUR days!

A defense team would have had a field day in court.

The print was accounted for at all times. Day had lifted it and held onto it until Nov 26. The provenance of it is rock solid. Not only that but the lift is just one of the direct links between Oswald and the rifle. There's the paper trail of Oswald's purchase of it and there's the backyard photos.  With the law and the evidence against them, a defense team could only pound the table and yell like hell.

[Tim Nickerson]

Correct, I should have noted Nov 21/22, to fit the bag, for which there is zero evidence.

Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

b]The print was accounted for at all times.[/b]

Zero evidence of it's existence prior to being thrown in the pile on Nov 26.

Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.

There's the paper trail of Oswald's purchase

Good luck with that one, so bring it on if you want to get crushed.

You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.

With the law and the evidence against them, a defense team could only pound the table and yell like hell.

Like Day only submitting two of the three shells found? -- ROFL

All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.

You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.

All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.

You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.

Tim,

From all the Waldman exhibits and his testimony, which piece(s) of evidence establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald?

[Tim Nickerson]

You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.

Tim,

From all the Waldman exhibits and his testimony, which piece(s) of evidence establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald?

Martin,

Waldman exhibits 7 and 8, together with the money order and the WC testimony of William Waldman. And of course the parts of the testimonies of Cadigan and Cole dealing with the handwriting on #8 and the money order.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin,

Waldman exhibits 7 and 8, together with the money order and the WC testimony of William Waldman. And of course the parts of the testimonies of Cadigan and Cole dealing with the handwriting on #8 and the money order.

Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.

The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.

Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.

This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!

But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.

[Peter Goth]

Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.

The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.

Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.

This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!

But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves.