Nope. I'm dead serious.
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.
What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?
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.
The actual photos and negative(s) were examined thoroughly down to the minutest detail by a panel of 21 experts in photographic analysis.
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.
The camera that took those photos was used in that investigation.
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.
How does something outside of those original photos and negative(s) alter the conclusion that the photos themselves were authentic and unaltered?
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.
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.
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.
The FBI memo , together with Liebeler's HSCA testimony, and the graphic provided here by John Mytton establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Then why are you unable to explain the glaring holes in the fable of the palmprint's alleged discovery and transmission?
Oh really? Where in the HSCA Volumes can we find that little piece of information?
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/) 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?
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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
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.
