Oswald's palm pint

[Anthony Marsh]

I think I found a photograph of Oswald's palm print taken on 11/22/63.
As I said before, some photos may have been overlooked or not published,
but are kept in the Sixth Floor Museum archives.
I am going to try copying and pasting this photo and hope it works:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184915/

I'll try copying and pasting the description from the Web site:



Home
Tour
About
Explore
Search

You Are Here: home search results this photograph

[Dallas Police Detective W.E. "Pete" Barnes with Oswald's palm print]
Primary view of object titled '[Dallas Police Detective W.E. "Pete"
Barnes with Oswald's palm print]'.
DescriptionBookmark this section

Original black and white photographic negative taken by an unidentified
Dallas Times Herald staff photographer. The image shows Dallas Police
Detective W.E. "Pete" Barnes with an ink print of Lee Harvey Oswald's
right hand in the hallway at the Dallas Police Department headquarters
on November 22, 1963.
Physical DescriptionBookmark this section

1 photograph : negative, b&w ; 35 mm.
Creation InformationBookmark this section

Dallas Times Herald November 22, 1963.
ContextBookmark this section

This photograph is part of the collection entitled: Rescuing Texas
History, 2011 and two others and was provided by The Sixth Floor Museum
at Dealey Plaza to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository
hosted by the UNT Libraries. It has been viewed 218 times . More
information about this photograph can be viewed below.

[David Von Pein]

There's also CE628 and CE629, which are pictures of Oswald's left & right
inked palmprints. Each exhibit clearly indicates (twice on each) the date
of "11-22-63"....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0155a.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0155b.htm

Were you aware of the two above DATED WC exhibits before posting your
Texas History photo, Tony? (Just curious.)

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but some alterationist could claim that they were faked backdated.
Hard to ague with the same day PHOTO.

[Steve BH]

If you’re dealing with a photo alterationist you can’t
argue b y any means. You think the Zapruder film wasn’t taken Nov.
22? Or for that matter the autopsy head photos?

[mainframetech]

Some of the 'leaked' autopsy photos are clearly altered. One needs to
look carefully and think, instead of simply assuming all is well with
them. Here's one of the photos of the BOH:

http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/images/autopsy.jpg

Now tell me where the bullet hole in the BOH is located.

Here's a drawing of that exact photo by Ida Dox, and sure enough they
told her where to put the bullet hole, which is not on the original photo!

https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/c07302c833.jpg

Strangely enough, there's a list here of over 39 witnesses that saw a
'large hole' in the BOH, and no other head wound. There's Obviously
something wrong with the autopsy photos, since they don't match reality.
Of course, you have to think to see it. And the prosectors that actually
say they saw the body, argued as to the location of the bullet hole in the
BOH!

Chris

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:

The alterationists like to eat their fake cake and have it too.

If the photo/film supports their conspiracy then it's authentic (or that
part of it they like is); if it disproves their conspiracy then it's fake.

The Z film is both real - it shows JFK hit from the front - and fake - it
shows the wound in JFK's head on the top/right and not the back. The
photos on 9/11 show a small hole in the Pentagon, therefore it was a
missile. The photos that show airplane parts are fake. So the same photo
that shows a small hole BUT also shows pieces of the airline is both fake
and real.

Look, we're not dealing for the most part with rational people. The
assassination is, for them, like a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. They grab
a piece here and a piece there - jam them together - and get a conspiracy.
All of those other pieces can be discarded.

They want to believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

Good point. I know what you mean. It's like arguing with a brick wall or
a WC defender.

[Anthony Marsh]

We have a lot of missing pieces because of the cover-up. Which you WC
defenders support.

> They want to believe.
>

[mainframetech]

I guess you've been frequenting those kooky LN websites that feed you
that phony stuff you just went on about. As a proud CT I am solid in my
producing evidence and proof where it can be seen by anyone, though any
evidence other than the WCR needs an open mind from the kooks around here.

I will be happy to provide testimony or statements from witnesses or
eye witnesses, and other evidence as needed. Just mention some area to me
that you're unsure about, or want me to prove, and I'll be happy to show
it to you.

I'd rather stick to the JFK case, since McAdams got tired of the 9/11
stuff. I offered logic there as well as here, but I guess some folks
can't use that tool.

Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
Technician said frames they took were missing from the final sets, and you
think that means nothing because the WCR tells you everything...including
the theories they needed to make the story finish up with Oswald as the
shooter. Theories are another way of saying 'we don't know, but here's an
idea'.

Chris

[claviger]

Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.

> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray

Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/8/2018 3:16 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10:06:40 PM UTC-5, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
>>> If you’re dealing with a photo alterationist you can’t
>>> argue b y any means. You think the Zapruder film wasn’t taken Nov.
>>> 22? Or for that matter the autopsy head photos?
>>
>> The alterationists like to eat their fake cake and have it too.
>>
>> If the photo/film supports their conspiracy then it's authentic (or that
>> part of it they like is); if it disproves their conspiracy then it's fake.
>>
>> The Z film is both real - it shows JFK hit from the front - and fake - it
>> shows the wound in JFK's head on the top/right and not the back. The
>> photos on 9/11 show a small hole in the Pentagon, therefore it was a
>> missile. The photos that show airplane parts are fake. So the same photo
>> that shows a small hole BUT also shows pieces of the airline is both fake
>> and real.
>>
>> Look, we're not dealing for the most part with rational people. The
>> assassination is, for them, like a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. They grab
>> a piece here and a piece there - jam them together - and get a conspiracy.
>> All of those other pieces can be discarded.
>>
>> They want to believe.
>
>
>
> I guess you've been frequenting those kooky LN websites that feed you
> that phony stuff you just went on about. As a proud CT I am solid in my
> producing evidence and proof where it can be seen by anyone, though any
> evidence other than the WCR needs an open mind from the kooks around here.
>

As a proud CT I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
As a Proud CT Randy Robertson proved that the autopsy photos are genuine.

> I will be happy to provide testimony or statements from witnesses or
> eye witnesses, and other evidence as needed. Just mention some area to me
> that you're unsure about, or want me to prove, and I'll be happy to show
> it to you.
>

No, you never do.

> I'd rather stick to the JFK case, since McAdams got tired of the 9/11
> stuff. I offered logic there as well as here, but I guess some folks
> can't use that tool.
>
> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray

The autopsy doctors were not qualified to identify bullet wounds.
That's why I call them The Three Stooges.
Ice Bullet? Really, dude?

> Technician said frames they took were missing from the final sets, and you
> think that means nothing because the WCR tells you everything...including

Did you read Randy's report? He was allowed to look at ALL the
originals, even the destroyed ones. I also looked at the blue streak and
I think is was light leakage.

> the theories they needed to make the story finish up with Oswald as the
> shooter. Theories are another way of saying 'we don't know, but here's an

My question is how did the autopsy doctors know WHILE they were
performing the autopsy that Owald was supposed to be the shooter?
How could they know exactly where he was supposed to be shooting from?

> idea'.
>

Theories are a method of testing possibilities.

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
Sure, but what does that prove?
Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
it up.

[claviger]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:00:57 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/9/2018 10:16 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
> > wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
> > So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.
> >> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
> >> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
> >> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
> > Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?
> You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
> Sure, but what does that prove?
> Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
> same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
> it up.

There already is a color photo of the forehead. No entrance wound.

[mainframetech]

Of course, though in B&W. I've shown that photo many times and so
either you've seen it already and are blowing smoke, or you didn't bother
as with a few LNs that didn't dare go look at such evidence for fear that
years of belief would go down the drain very quickly. The photo and
instructions are below anyway.

> > Technician said frames they took were missing from the final sets, and you
> > think that means nothing because the WCR tells you everything...including
> > the theories they needed to make the story finish up with Oswald as the
> > shooter. Theories are another way of saying 'we don't know, but here's an
> > idea'.
> >

Here's the photo of the bullet hole in the forehead of JFK. You have
to ENLARGE it and look under the hair on the right forehead:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg

And any same 'stare-of-death' photo online will also show the same, so
you know I didn't 'fix' this one.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/11/2018 10:21 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:00:57 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/9/2018 10:16 AM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
>>> wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
>>> So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.
>>>> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
>>>> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
>>>> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
>>> Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?
>> You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
>> Sure, but what does that prove?
>> Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
>> same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
>> it up.
>
> There already is a color photo of the forehead. No entrance wound.
>

Not that YOU can see, because you are a WC defender and you are not
allowed to see bullet holes.
Can you ever answer my questions?

How can there be a bullet hole on the skull and no corresponding bullet
hole on the scalp directly over it?

<rickets>

[claviger]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 8:16:47 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/11/2018 10:21 AM, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:00:57 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 3/9/2018 10:16 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
> >>> wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
> >>> So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.
> >>>> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
> >>>> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
> >>>> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
> >>> Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?
> >> You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
> >> Sure, but what does that prove?
> >> Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
> >> same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
> >> it up.
> >
> > There already is a color photo of the forehead. No entrance wound.
> Not that YOU can see, because you are a WC defender and you are not
> allowed to see bullet holes.
> Can you ever answer my questions?
> How can there be a bullet hole on the skull and no corresponding bullet
> hole on the scalp directly over it?
> <rickets>

Three pathologist saw the hole in the skull and two of them measured it.

<more rickets>

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:00:57 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 3/9/2018 10:16 AM, claviger wrote:
> >
> > > Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
> > > wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
> > > So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.
> > >> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
> > >> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
> > >> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
> > > Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?
> > You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
> > Sure, but what does that prove?
> > Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
> > same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
> > it up.
>
> There already is a color photo of the forehead. No entrance wound.

Show the photo you're talking about. I Think you're using the wrong
photo. Better to use the B&W photos anyway. Here's a good one:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2018 11:55 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:00:57 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2018 10:16 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you produce evidence of 40 witnesses who observed a large
>>>> wound on the back of the head in the Occipital bone of the skull?
>>>> So far, you have failed every attempt to do that.
>>>>> Don't complain that an autopsy photo shows a bullet hole in the
>>>>> forehead. That was allowed to slip through the filtering they did for
>>>>> evidence like photos and X-rays. Both photographers and the X-ray
>>>> Can you produce a color photo of a bullet hole in the forehead?
>>> You mean can he take the black and whie photo and change it into color?
>>> Sure, but what does that prove?
>>> Do you mean does he have the corresponding color photo taken from the
>>> same angle as the black and white photo? Of course not. You guys covered
>>> it up.
>>
>> There already is a color photo of the forehead. No entrance wound.
>
>
>
>
> Show the photo you're talking about. I Think you're using the wrong
> photo. Better to use the B&W photos anyway. Here's a good one:
>
> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
>

We call that the Stare of Death photo.
BTW, the original prints did not have borders. That looks like a cheap
copy done at Walmart.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean The Three Stooges, but you aren't brave enough to name them.
So do you still believe in the Humes theory about an Ice Bullet?
<crickets>

> <more rickets>
>