Palm Print of Rifle - DAY_Print2.JPG (0/1)

[John McAdams]

The attached image was found by Jean Davison.

Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
photograph and raise.�

Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
Washington about this.

This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed
never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on
Monday.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>
>
>

> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>
> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>
> photograph and raise.�

>
>
>
> Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
>
> Washington about this.
>
>
>
> This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed
>
> never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on
>
> Monday.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the
words in it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary
Ferrell site:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594

Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised)
a latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only
print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print.

[Glenn Sarlitto]

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:

> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>
>
>

> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>
> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>
> photograph and raise.�
>
>
>

> Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
>
> Washington about this.
>
>
>
> This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed
>
> never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on
>
> Monday.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

.John,

I use Google for this forum, so attachments will not be shown. Can you
e-mail me the doc or can you post a link to it?

GS

[John McAdams]

On 30 Nov 2013 14:38:03 -0500, Glenn Sarlitto <gsar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sure:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Day_print.jpg

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Mike]

On 11/30/2013 10:08 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>>
>>
>>

>> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>>
>> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>>
>> photograph and raise.�

>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
>>
>> Washington about this.
>>
>>
>>
>> This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed
>>
>> never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on
>>
>> Monday.
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the
> words in it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary
> Ferrell site:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594
>
> Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised)
> a latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only
> print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print.
>
>

So who's print was it?

[John McAdams]

Oswald's.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 3:19:55 PM UTC-6, Mike wrote:
> On 11/30/2013 10:08 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>
> >>
>
> >> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>
> >>
>
> >> photograph and raise.�
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
>
> >>
>
> >> Washington about this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed
>
> >>
>
> >> never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on
>
> >>
>
> >> Monday.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> .John
>
> >>
>
> >> --------------
>
> >>
>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the
>
> > words in it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary
>
> > Ferrell site:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594
>
> >
>
> > Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised)
>
> > a latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only
>
> > print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> So who's print was it?

Maimonides.

[mainframetech]

I have no problem with the palm print being found, but it leads to a
question about the fact that the rifle had to have been wiped down with
something to remove any other prints. Did the shooter use gloves on a
rifle that was wiped down? No gloves were found on Oswald or in the TSBD.
Did the shooter stop everything and wipe down the rifle after killing the
POTUS? Was there really that much time available? And then to run down
to the lunchroom and get a soda? Not a marathon runner, Oswald was a bit
lazy about such things. We have no information about his exercising at
all. It leaves a question of how the rifle got to be wiped down. Was the
rifle used at all, or just placed there to implicate Oswald?

Chris

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

The image [linked below] was found by Jean Davison.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg

It shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he "had been

successful in raising a latent print" which he was going to "both
photograph and raise."

Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in Washington
about this.

This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed never
existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on Monday.

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the words in
it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary Ferrell site:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594

Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised) a
latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only
print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Jean and John.

It seems as though every time Jean Davison opens her mouth, another
conspiracy theory or myth goes sliding down the tubes (where each one
belongs anyway). I continue to be in awe of Jean Davison--year after year.
Thank you, Jean.

The key item in that memo regarding Lt. Day finding the latent print on
the rifle is the DATE of the memorandum -- 11/23/63 -- which is a day when
Oswald was still alive and well in Dallas Police custody.

And the memorandum also states that "Lt. Carl Day...advised on 11/22/63"
.... which tells us that Lt. Day did, in fact, find the print on the rifle
ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION ITSELF -- which (obviously) had to have
been PRIOR to the Dallas Police Department turning over the rifle to the
FBI at about 11:45 PM CST on the night of November 22nd.

I love it when "new" information like this surfaces. This memo totally
destroys the theory that Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD did not find any
prints on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle PRIOR to the rifle going to
the FBI on the night of 11/22/63.

Or maybe some conspiracists will now contend that this memorandum is a
"fake" too:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg

[John McAdams]

On 30 Nov 2013 22:34:10 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
>The image [linked below] was found by Jean Davison.
>
>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
>
>It shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he "had been
>successful in raising a latent print" which he was going to "both
>photograph and raise."
>
>Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in Washington
>about this.
>
>This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed never
>existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on Monday.
>
>
>JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
>Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the words in
>it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary Ferrell site:
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594
>
>Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised) a
>latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only
>print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>Thanks, Jean and John.
>
>It seems as though every time Jean Davison opens her mouth, another
>conspiracy theory or myth goes sliding down the tubes (where each one
>belongs anyway). I continue to be in awe of Jean Davison--year after year.
>Thank you, Jean.
>

There are several pages on my website that are largely the product of
research Jean posted here (I try to give full credit).

She's cracked all sorts of issues. One big one was the Eddie
Benavides death, which I and several of my students had been trying to
crack for years.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/benavides_death.htm

But there have been many more.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

Audio addendum to the "PRINT FOUND ON RIFLE ON 11/22/63" story:

The following brief audio clip comes from my video collection. It's a
report by Robert MacNeil that aired on NBC-TV on the night of 11/22/63. My
guess is that MacNeil's use of the term "fingerprint" here should probably
be "palm print", but it certainly indicates that the DPD *did* find a
"print" on the rifle before the gun left Dallas on Nov. 22:

http://app.box.com/s/o8nnxusl6hokv6v7112m

[Jean Davison]

Thanks, David, I appreciate it, but you give me far too much credit. I
found this page entirely by accident while I was looking for something
else.

Thank you, by the way, for all the good videos and other information
you've found and put on line. Good work!

Jean

[Jean Davison]

On 11/30/2013 9:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2013 22:34:10 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Come on, guys, you're making me blush. (But thanks.)

Jean

[tims...@gmail.com]

That's a very good point, DVP!

Hope you have been enjoying some of the 50th anniversary coverage.

TB

[mainframetech]

I'm happy to hear that Jean was able to crack some of the extant stories
of baloney that go around. Some of my own statements are now modified due
to her calm deliberative efforts. Now I wonder if anyone would like to
tackle the question I raised above?

Thanks,
Chris

[Glenn Sarlitto]

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:

> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>
>
>

> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>
> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>
> photograph and raise.�
>
>


>

RE: > Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in
>
> Washington about this.
>
>

Actually, it appears that the Dallas FBI office did inform Washington if
you look at the two documents...Yours is timestamped 11/22/23 and dated
11/23/2013 while Jean's is dated 11/24/2013 and found in the HQ File.

GS

PS...Wasn't this stuff discussed a few years ago with James Olmstead?
Seems to me it was.

[loon killer]

BUT. BUT. But .. how do we know it real?

CT heads are exploding.

[Bud]

Isn`t this just the product of hobbyist figuring?

> Did the shooter use gloves on a
>
> rifle that was wiped down? No gloves were found on Oswald or in the TSBD.
>
> Did the shooter stop everything and wipe down the rifle after killing the
>
> POTUS? Was there really that much time available? And then to run down
>
> to the lunchroom and get a soda?

Ducked into the lunchroom to avoid the cops. Remember he had just killed
someone, that illegal even in Texas.

> Not a marathon runner, Oswald was a bit
>
> lazy about such things. We have no information about his exercising at
>
> all.

Information isn`t the problem, hobbyist figuring is.

> It leaves a question of how the rifle got to be wiped down. Was the
>
> rifle used at all, or just placed there to implicate Oswald?

Did Oswald even exist? Was Kennedy really killed? The musings of
hobbyists for decades.


>
>
> Chris

[Jean Davison]

On 11/30/2013 7:22 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:08:52 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he ???had
>>
>>>
>>
>>> been successful in raising a latent print??? which he was going to ???both
>>
>>>
>>
>>> photograph and raise.???

Haven't you heard of the partial prints on the trigger guard? The
rifle wasn't wiped clean. See this page on fingerprints, Chris:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm

Oswald didn't have to rush -- that's another JFK myth. Re-enactments
have shown that a shooter leaving the sniper's nest could *walk*
downstairs and meet up with a Baker stand-in on the second floor. You
don't agree. That's your choice, end of story.

Jean

[mainframetech]

Sorry Jean,

I can no longer accept anything from the McAdams files as useful. I
encountered a file there purporting to tell the 'truth' about Tom Wilson
with the new technology for looking at photographs and films. It was
blatantly false when compared with a book talking about Wilson and his
process. Not that the book spoke too highly of Wilson, the McAdams
article did! The article that McAdams had put away was loaded with
bloated brags about things that Wilson never did and never 'bragged'
about. It made Wilson look bad, which was probably the intent. Being
aware of McAdams LN status, I have to avoid his files where they contain
'hit' pieces like the Wilson article.

If I were to hunt down articles on fingerprinting, I would encounter
these:

http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2926&context=jclc

The first is by Gary Savage and talks about his uncle who was on the
Dallas police force. He mentions further prints of Oswald's that were
found on the trigger guard housing (3 right hand fingers) which I'm
assuming that you were speaking of. I must thank you for bringing up the
further prints on the rifle which were found on the OUTSIDE.

Now if Oswald was lacking in caution as to NOT wipe down the rifle, did
he plan on it being used in a criminal investigation of HIMSELF? While
not well educated, he wasn't a dummy. He was able to speak well enough to
make an impression on a radio audience. Given reasonable intelligence,
wouldn't he have seen to the problem of fingerprints if he were going to
murder the president? While he used the Hidell name to buy the rifle, he
knew he was printed in the service and prints would be a giveaway.

Handling the MC rifle was either the act of someone that believed he was
innocent of a crime, or someone who didn't care if he were blamed for a
crime. In Oswald's case, he ran and tried to hide (theater), so that we
must assume that he didn't want to be held or blamed for a crime. That
leaves the other choice, which says that Oswald didn't think there was any
serious crime in what he was last doing with the rifle.

As to the supposed easy trip down the stairs from the 6th floor, I had
heard that a woman (Victoria Adams) that worked at the TSBD was going down
the stairs immediately after the shots, and she would have seen or heard
someone going down them at the same time. She didn't see Oswald, which
certainly limits his time to escape from the 6th floor and get to his Coke
in the lunchroom.

Chris

[Mike]

On 12/1/2013 11:58 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>
> Haven't you heard of the partial prints on the trigger guard? The
> rifle wasn't wiped clean. See this page on fingerprints, Chris:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
>
> Oswald didn't have to rush -- that's another JFK myth.
> Re-enactments have shown that a shooter leaving the sniper's nest could
> *walk* downstairs and meet up with a Baker stand-in on the second floor.
> You don't agree. That's your choice, end of story.
>
> Jean
>
>

Jack Ruby killed Oswald 2 days later. You will not get much clearer
evidence of conspiracy than that. You don't agree. That is your choice,
end of story.

[Glenn Sarlitto]

Man, did I get those dates wrong, or what?

They should be 1963 and not 2013.

.John's doc is timestamped 11/22/63 and dated 11/23/63 while Jean's is
dated 11/24/63 and found in the HQ File.


GS

[Glenn Sarlitto]

Chris,

I posted a reply to similar type questions of yours in another post
regarding fingerprints. I'm reposting it here.

Although I'm not a fingerprint expert, there is one thing I do know...

Having just one of your prints on a murder weapon is not a good thing,
especially if you don't have a credible alibi.

GS

[BT George]

Same for me. Would appreciate it if .John could send it to me too.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/2/2013 12:53 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:22:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:08:52 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>>> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> photograph and raise.�

Did he hear Baker running up the stairs and know from the sound of his
motorcycle boots that he was a cop?

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:22:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

Just thought I would add some tidbits. Day said that the palm print was
an old print. The print on the trigger guard was a fresh print. One
thing Day didn't say was that in the rifle find, there was papers
carefully laid over the rifle, and that they were taken off before a photo
was made. That is probably new information to most. Besides wiping down
the gun, it would seem they would need something to wipe it with. If it
was with clothes worn, would that not be somehow detectable? I also
believe where the rifle was found would have need for extra time in
getting there and getting out, and placing it in a way where it stood up.
All this was supposedly done without any footsteps heard from below which
was known to have thin flooring because of the work being done. Nobody
heard footsteps, and nobody heard stair steps. The boys on the fifth
floor were soon by the back stairwell, and the lady supervisor went right
out to the stairwell for some office related work and stayed there. No
one going down, and Truly and Baker going up.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's sure why it looked suspicious, but then it was investigated.
If you think that mere circumstance in itself *proves* conspiracy, you
are missing some logical steps.

/sandy

[mainframetech]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:17:58 PM UTC-5, Mike wrote:
> On 12/1/2013 11:58 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Haven't you heard of the partial prints on the trigger guard? The
>
> > rifle wasn't wiped clean. See this page on fingerprints, Chris:
>
> >
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
>
> >

My note previously is that I can no longer use files from the McAdams
website. I've found too many 'hit' pieces there, and one particular one
tried to damage Tom Wilson, but really said nothing about his technology
or proving it doesn't work. But it goes into all kinds of things it
attributed to Wilson that the book about Wilson and his method didn't
mention. Too many problems with the McAdams data.

>
> > Oswald didn't have to rush -- that's another JFK myth.
>
> > Re-enactments have shown that a shooter leaving the sniper's nest could
>
> > *walk* downstairs and meet up with a Baker stand-in on the second floor.
>
> > You don't agree. That's your choice, end of story.
>
> >
>
> > Jean
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack Ruby killed Oswald 2 days later. You will not get much clearer
>
> evidence of conspiracy than that. You don't agree. That is your choice,
>
> end of story.

See my previous post in the thread.

Chris

[mainframetech]

While I must agree, were the prints innocently put there by him and then
the rifle is placed in the TSBD and leads to Oswald? Because of the other
things that wee made to look like Oswald shot JFK, it's suggestive that
the placement of the rifle was to nail him to the crime too.

They screwed up though with placing the CE399 'magic' bullet at
Parkland on the WRONG stretcher. Tomlinson, who found the bullet made
that clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

And there were major problems with the chain of custody with that
bullet too. At one point, there were 2 copies of it outstanding at the
same time...:)

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Chris

[Bud]

<snicker> Certainly not useful to your silly ideas. The information on
that site conflicts with what you desperately want to believe, stick to
those conspiracy crackpot sites, you will find the satisfaction and
reassurances you crave.

[mainframetech]

Bud sez:
" <snicker> Certainly not useful to your silly ideas. The information on
that site conflicts with what you desperately want to believe, stick to
those conspiracy crackpot sites, you will find the satisfaction and
reassurances you crave. "

Snickering always makes me think of Beavis and Butthead. I guess you
haven't been watching my comments lately. I've used only valid JFK sites
and sworn testimony. If you try to disprove anything I've been saying
lately, try and use the same type of quality information. Although my
memory of your methods was that you generally left out much proof of
anything.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It was that perception alone that made most people immediately think it
was a conspiracy. As Mafia expert Ralph Salerno says when you have a
conspiracy someone very quickly has to kill the killer.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:47:37 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/2/2013 12:53 AM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:22:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:08:52 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:00:20 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The attached image was found by Jean Davison.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>

> >>>> Is shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he �had
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> been successful in raising a latent print� which he was going to �both
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> photograph and raise.�
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>

He just shot someone in an area filled with cops, but I suppose it could
have been someone going up to do book inventory.

[Bud]

It isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the poor thinking and
hobbyist figuring you apply to it.

> If you try to disprove anything I've been saying
>
> lately, try and use the same type of quality information.

Can`t I just point out that you are shooting blanks by making a bunch of
meaningless claims?

> Although my
>
> memory of your methods was that you generally left out much proof of
>
> anything.

The only thing you`ve been showing is your desperation to believe silly
things.

>
>
> Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

WTF does "valid JFK sites" mean?
Oh, I know.
I've seen your sources.

One page of common sense is worth 100 by Doug Horne.
Just sayin'.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, that's what I said. It sure looked like conspiracy.

That's why it was investigated.

And guess what...

it wasn't.

/sandy

[OHLeeRedux]

> It was that perception alone that made most people immediately think it
> was a conspiracy. As Mafia expert Ralph Salerno says when you have a
> conspiracy someone very quickly has to kill the killer.
>

And then someone must kill the killer of the killer . . .

Oh, of course. They gave Ruby cancer by injecting him with cancer cells,
even though that is medically impossible, and certainly wasn't
"immediate."

So, who killed the guy who gave Ruby cancer, or has that "immediate"
murder been delayed for fifty years?

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. You're simply looking for the easiest way to do your work while everyone else does real work to back up their beliefs. You make comments that save you the work necessary to hold the opinions you espouse. Typical hobbyist dilettante that creeps around the fringes. Try arguing where bigdog was, with me trying to prove to me that 2 caskets didn't exist...:) Aren't you supposed to take over for him? Didn't he just step in for a few moments to help you out?

>
>
> > Although my
>
> >
>
> > memory of your methods was that you generally left out much proof of
>
> >
>
> > anything.
>
>
>
> The only thing you`ve been showing is your desperation to believe silly
>
> things.
>

That doesn't answer my comment, did you notice? You sort of ran away
from that...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah, so just like the WTC case, you have decided to avoid direct work of
research and just talk your way through with the usual insults and
ridicule. Never getting into the details. Understandable. A diletante
attitude, yes?

Don't want to touch the problem of the 2 caskets, or the damage done to
the top of the head by the prosectors? Naah. That measn serious work.

To help you get to know me better, which you obviously don't, I'm using
ONLY the sworn testimony of the people involved in the arguments for the
above 2 portions of the case. So you lack the knowledge of the sites I
use.

Jump in, give it a try to do REAL debate or argument, and not creep
around the fringes of other people's work.

Chris

[Glenn Sarlitto]

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 8:27:49 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/3/2013 12:42 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> > On 12/2/13 9:17 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> >> On 12/1/2013 11:58 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Haven't you heard of the partial prints on the trigger guard? The
>
> >>> rifle wasn't wiped clean. See this page on fingerprints, Chris:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Oswald didn't have to rush -- that's another JFK myth.
>
> >>> Re-enactments have shown that a shooter leaving the sniper's nest could
>
> >>> *walk* downstairs and meet up with a Baker stand-in on the second floor.
>
> >>> You don't agree. That's your choice, end of story.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Jean
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Jack Ruby killed Oswald 2 days later. You will not get much clearer
>
> >> evidence of conspiracy than that. You don't agree. That is your choice,
>
> >> end of story.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > That's sure why it looked suspicious, but then it was investigated.
>
> > If you think that mere circumstance in itself *proves* conspiracy, you
>
> > are missing some logical steps.
>
> >
>
> > /sandy
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>

RE:

> It was that perception alone that made most people immediately think it
>
> was a conspiracy. As Mafia expert Ralph Salerno says when you have a
>
> conspiracy someone very quickly has to kill the killer.

Since when is waiting two days considered "very quickly" even by Mafioso
type time standards when it comes to making a "hit" such as this. Unless
of course it was the Proscrastinato Family.

GS

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

It's turtles all the way down.

More seriously, I've heard that argument and I'm not swayed by it. After
all the Mob does use hit men and they do kill people to silence them. They
don't then kill the killer and then kill that killer et cetera ad
infinitum.

But Ruby simply doesn't, as far as I know, fit the profile of a hitman.

[Anthony Marsh]

What looked like a conspiracy? And to whom?
Do you mean the JFK assassination?

> That's why it was investigated.
>

That's why it was covered up instead of being investigated.
Because they were sure it was a conspiracy.

> And guess what...
>
> it wasn't.
>

It was.

> /sandy
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Serious work"?
Oh, brother.

I know you really think you're serious.
And I really believe you are *terribly* sincere.

You just don't know how it looks from here, man.
You just don't know how it looks from here.


/sandy

[mainframetech]

I've seen on TV the questioning of a killer that turned over to the feds
to free himself. He spoke of killing many people over the course of many
years. If he were not a useful resource, then he might have been erased
himself, but he was useful and so they kept him on. They knew him to be
good at his job, and quiet about their business.

So I'm not in with the idea that you need to kill the killer.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Someone just kick you in the head or something?
You sound dazed.

>> That's why it was investigated.
>>
> That's why it was covered up instead of being investigated.
> Because they were sure it was a conspiracy.
>
>> And guess what...
>>
>> it wasn't.
>>
> It was.

Ha ha.
So where's your evidence?
A recording made in the Trade Mart doesn't count!


/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/5/2013 12:44 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> It was that perception alone that made most people immediately think it
>> was a conspiracy. As Mafia expert Ralph Salerno says when you have a
>> conspiracy someone very quickly has to kill the killer.
>>
>
>
> And then someone must kill the killer of the killer . . .
>
> Oh, of course. They gave Ruby cancer by injecting him with cancer cells,
> even though that is medically impossible, and certainly wasn't
> "immediate."
>

Ok, so you wouldn't mind being injected wit cancer cells.

[Anthony Marsh]

Please explain how a Mafia hitman racks up hundreds of kills if he is
murdered after a hit he makes.
Salerno lied.

[Anthony Marsh]

How long did it take for them to get to Rodolfo Cadena?
Give us some examples of the time frame it usually takes to eliminate a
killer in police custody.

[Anthony Marsh]

What recording was made at the Trade Mart? Show me your proof.

[Bud]

It isn`t work, it`s a silly hobby you engage in. You arrange information
in a manner you find appealing. It`s a game, a creative exercise, you
concoct something and then display your creation proudly. If I debate your
silly ideas it might help foster the idea that it is something else, and
that you have a legitimate position. If you had a legitimate position you
wouldn`t be here trying to sell it.

> You make comments that save you the work necessary to hold the opinions you espouse.

What you write saves me any work. I need only point out what it is you
are doing.

> Typical hobbyist dilettante that creeps around the fringes. Try arguing where bigdog was, with me trying to prove to me that 2 caskets didn't exist...:) Aren't you supposed to take over for him? Didn't he just step in for a few moments to help you out?

He said why he briefly returned, but true to form you construct a reason
out of nothing that you prefer.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Although my
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > memory of your methods was that you generally left out much proof of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > anything.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The only thing you`ve been showing is your desperation to believe silly
>
> >
>
> > things.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> That doesn't answer my comment, did you notice? You sort of ran away
>
> from that...:)

I`m doing something different.


>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh, you've made your opinion clear, and what things look like to YOU,
it's just that you're not aware of how unimportant your opinion is to many
people because you won't get down into the trenches.

Since you've admitted that you're an LNer, why not argue against the
dual casket switch? That's an issue currently on the table.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The work is too hard for WC defenders to do. Imagine going to the
National Archives and searching through 10 million documents and copying
or scanning them. You might get your fingernails dirty.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm sure my opinion means very little to you, Chris.

The feeling's mutual.



/sandy

[Bud]

Things are demonstrably the way I see them.

> it's just that you're not aware of how unimportant your opinion is to many
>
> people because you won't get down into the trenches.

You seem unaware of how unimportant I find that claim.

> Since you've admitted that you're an LNer, why not argue against the
>
> dual casket switch?

Now why would I do that?

> That's an issue currently on the table.

Just a game, Chris, just a game.

>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

You didn't answer the main question that I mentioned. Why aren't you in
the trenches, why hang around the fringes injecting an insult now and
then? Isn't that even less than a hobbyist? Maybe a tourist?

[cmikes]

So who killed Jack Ruby? And who killed the person who killed Jack Ruby?
And who killed the person who killed the person who killed Jack Ruby?
And who killed the person who killed the person who killed the person who
killed Jack Ruby?

All of this is moot anyway since we know that Jack Ruby wasn't part of the
Mob. At most he had some low level mob contacts who wouldn't even help
him with his problems with the performers mob... err union he was having
trouble with.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is why Salerno's theory doesn't work.

> All of this is moot anyway since we know that Jack Ruby wasn't part of the
> Mob. At most he had some low level mob contacts who wouldn't even help

Straw man argument. No one said Ruby was IN the Mafia. He was an
associate, a front. Only Italians can be in the Mafia. But Jews are often
associated with the Mafia and there have even been Jewish mobs. Various
Mafiosi have used Non-Italians in their operations. Joey Gallo was
criticized for working with black criminals. And the Angiulos made the
mistake of trusting the Irish mob.

> him with his problems with the performers mob... err union he was having
> trouble with.
>

Fiction. Talk to Robert Blakey. Ever hear of Joe Campisi?

[mainframetech]

If the mob were the ones that ordered Ruby to kill Oswald before he had a
chance to open his mouth, no one would help Ruby with that hanging over
his head.

Chris

[Glenn Sarlitto]

RE Your: Only Italians can be in the Mafia

Factoido Numero Uno...

Correctione....There has never been an Italian Mafia. If you are referring
to the "Cosa Nostra" when you speak of Mafia, (aka Sicilian Mafia) only
Siciliano were Mafioso. Membership required 100% Sicilian Blood.

Go ahead Tony, name one Italian who was in the Sicilian Mafia aka "Cosa
Nostra".

GS

PS...I guess you have to be Italian or Sicilian to understand the
difference.

[cmikes]

Yes. Guilt by association doesn't prove anything, though. Jack Ruby knew
DA Henry Wade. Was Wade involved? Ruby knew all kinds of cops, were they
all involved? How about all the newspaper workers that Ruby knew? Ruby
was a gladhander who "knew" a lot of people. Was every single person who
Ruby knew involved in the conspiracy? Ruby knew a lot a mobsters and was
a noted wannabe who everyone knew could never make it. Even his own
family said he would be the worst person any conspiracy could choose
because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about anything, let alone a
conspiracy to kill the President that he practically worshiped.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 12:00:55 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:31:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 5:24:58 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>

<snip useless Google inserts>

So different that you can't answer the question. :)


>
>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say Sicilian Mob or Black Hand. I said Mafia. American Mafia.

[cmikes]

He had been having these troubles with the performers mob... err union for
months, well before a Texas trip was even planned by JFK, let alone going
to Dallas. No one would help him because he simply wasn't that important.

[Anthony Marsh]

Talk to Blakey.

[Bud]

Yah, different than acceding to your request. Something I`ve explained
to you.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris