Message From Author Patricia Lambert -- "David Lifton owes me an apology. David Lifton owes Vince Bugliosi an apology."


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 5:57:31 AM PDT
Mr. Axelson:

Read my entire post. Then, answer the question. Are you willing to accept the truth, and if so, from whom? I believe the print to be a match, it was determined and corroborated, however, ardent WC defenders believe it is not. It has been over 7 years since anyone has taken a look at the print. I am reviving it to put the issue to rest for good. So, I will ask you again, Mr. Axelson, from whom would you accept this is a match, or, would you accept the news from an unbiased source with impeccable credentials?

Getting to some of your comments: <"Mr. Van Noord, you have repeatedly mis-represented my statements, mis-quoted me, and attempted to put words into my mouth">
I apologize, Mr. Axelson if you were offended. But, in one breath, you say fingerprint ID is not rocket science, then you say you're not an expert. (Did I misrepresent that?) If it's not rocket science, it must be easy, right?

So the question is, if I had a CLPE who identified a print with 34 points and it was verified by a second CLPE, what are the chances it would be accepted by the jury, given the fact that none of Nathan Darby matches over 40 years were ever called into question? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'll just await your answer.

Regarding Billy Sol Estes: He had already served his time, he waited until all the principles were dead.
Barefoot Sanders on the other hand, was a close friend and counsel of LBJ..don't you think he has a bias?

<"Take a look at Robert Groden, f'gosh sakes. He testified in the OJ civil trial, was permitted to express his opinion as an expert on whether or not a photo of OJ wearing Bruno Maglis was genuine or not."> Absolutely. I agree, he embarrassed himself. However, it does not disqualify all his work.

<"And we're STILL waiting for your answer on what rifle Mr. Wallace fired."> There was another rifle found on the roof of the depository that day. Check the Mentesana film. Some claim it was just a police rifle. Why would they be examining their own rifle? Then there are reports of a Mauser. Even a CIA docment produced on 11/25/63 describe a "7.35 mm Mauser, Model 91, 1938."

<"escape the TSBD and Dealey Plaza without being seen"> Not quite, Mr. Axelson. Richard Carr and James Worrell both describe a man fitting Wallace's description leave the building. and Brennan's original description of the person he saw on the sixth floor more resembles Wallace than Oswald. Oswald was 150 pounds soaking wet. He was listed as 140. Oswald was 5' 9". Wallace was 5' 11" 180 pounds. Brennan's description was 5' 10", 165-175 pounds.

<" and I'll just have to rely on the FBI's conclusion on this one.">
What reply, Mr. Axelson? There is nothing written from the FBI stating it is not a match. Good luck finding it.

I await your reply to my question above.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 6:13:33 AM PDT
Mr. Carruthers:

I did say "nearly pristine", not "pristine".

As for the Mentesana film: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1327728655788407526

Turn the tables all you want, Mr. Carruthers. By posing that question, you put your own theory into jeopardy. The only time he could have washed his face was at his boarding room (if you stand by the WC). Earlene Roberts never testified that he used the common bathroom.

And, Mr. Carruthers, you are correct, a dead man has never been convicted of anything. But that also means that LHO is forever innocent under the principle of abatement.

<"So far the only thing you have offered in support of your claims is excuses, which do not favorably impress me. "> Because I won't solve the crime? No, you're not impressed because I offer information counter to what has convinced you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 6:33:28 AM PDT
I took the liberty of looking up this Mentesana film on Google. The article I read indicated that the weapon in the film is not a rifle at all but rather a Remington 870 shotgun. It just so happens that this is the same type of shotgun carried by the Dallas police. It also just so happens that I personally own a Remington 870 shotgun, and I am well acquainted with their appearance. I will take a look at the video that you listed above.

Once again, using a CT tactic, I would add that just because Earlene Roberts didn't testify that he washed his face doesn't mean he didn't. You can prove that he didn't.

(Incidentally, I don't personally assert this last argument as valid logic. I am using it to illustrate the futility of asserting a conclusion without providing positive proof).

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 6:44:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 28, 2007 6:45:43 AM PDT
Yeah, I watched the film, and the weapon the police are examining is indeed a shotgun. Upon reviewing the film several times I could make out the pump on the front of the shotgun; the barrel extending beyond the pump (military style rifles of that day generally feature full stocks with the possible exception of an M1 carbine. This is not an M1 carbine because the barrel is too thick). What Mentesana has filmed here is a cop holding his own shotgun. Since cops often hold their own shotguns, I hope you understand why I say this is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Incidentally, is "nearly pristine" anything like being "nearly virginal"? I understood the question to involve exclusive alternatives.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 8:09:37 AM PDT
D. Axelson says:
"Read my entire post. Then, answer the question. Are you willing to accept the truth, and if so, from whom? I believe the print to be a match, it was determined and corroborated, however, ardent WC defenders believe it is not. It has been over 7 years since anyone has taken a look at the print. I am reviving it to put the issue to rest for good. So, I will ask you again, Mr. Axelson, from whom would you accept this is a match, or, would you accept the news from an unbiased source with impeccable credentials?"

Mr. Van Noord, what I keep trying to tell you is that IF a fingerprint match has been made, it is something that ANYBODY can see. The expert starts at point #1, and then says "We start here at this bifurcation, this ridge split. Okay, we then go down, crossing three ridges, and reach this, which is an end point. We then cross two ridges and here's another split. We follow this ridge counter-clockwise until we reach this end point." And so on. If it's done properly, you can SEE the match on your own. Show me a match, and I'll admit it's a match.

Oh, and BTW - doesn't the fact that this issue has gotten no attention and been essentially dead for seven years tell you something? Like maybe that there's nothing to it?

"Getting to some of your comments: <"Mr. Van Noord, you have repeatedly mis-represented my statements, mis-quoted me, and attempted to put words into my mouth">
I apologize, Mr. Axelson if you were offended. But, in one breath, you say fingerprint ID is not rocket science, then you say you're not an expert. (Did I misrepresent that?) If it's not rocket science, it must be easy, right?"

You're missing the point. One generally has to be a fingerprint expert to CLASSIFY fingerprints as to type; one has to be a fingerprint expert to FIND a matching K print for a Q or latent print. But once that has been done, and the points of comparison identified, ANYBODY (with the possible exception of Stevie Wonder) can see the match. I cannot classify fingerprints, and I wouldn't know how to go about searching through thousands (or millions) of fingerprint cards to identify the one that matches a particular latent print. But if someone says that this print matches this one, because this point matches that, this point matches that, and so on, it slaps you in the face - it's either a match or it isn't. If someone came up to you and handed you a photograph, and said, "That's a picture of your mother", you would know immediately whether it was or it was not, wouldn't you? And if it wasn't a picture of her, it doesn't make any difference how many experts tell you it is, because you can recognize that it's not. Same thing with fingerprints. If there are three ridges between two "known" points on your Q print, and four between the same two supposed points on your K print, there's no match, no matter how many experts tell you otherwise.

"So the question is, if I had a CLPE who identified a print with 34 points and it was verified by a second CLPE, what are the chances it would be accepted by the jury, given the fact that none of Nathan Darby matches over 40 years were ever called into question? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'll just await your answer."

As I said, it depends on what Mr. Darby is trying to tell those jurors. If he's trying to tell them that two things are the same, when they can clearly see that they are different, his testimony will not be "accepted".

"Regarding Billy Sol Estes: He had already served his time, he waited until all the principles were dead.
Barefoot Sanders on the other hand, was a close friend and counsel of LBJ..don't you think he has a bias? "
So what are you saying? I should believe BSE, because he's dead? Because he's a convicted felon? Because he's served his time? Because he waited until everyone who could contradict him was dead? You think ANY of those facts gives him added credibility? Not to burst your bubble, Mr. Van Noord, but in a trial, every single one of those would merit a jury instruction on credibility, and would be argued as DECREASING his credibility.

"<"Take a look at Robert Groden, f'gosh sakes. He testified in the OJ civil trial, was permitted to express his opinion as an expert on whether or not a photo of OJ wearing Bruno Maglis was genuine or not."> Absolutely. I agree, he embarrassed himself. However, it does not disqualify all his work."

While you are, on principle, correct ("Even a prostitute can be raped."), the fact is that, given his refusal to admit even a blatant mistake, anything else he says must be regarded with extreme skepticism.

<"And we're STILL waiting for your answer on what rifle Mr. Wallace fired."> There was another rifle found on the roof of the depository that day. Check the Mentesana film. Some claim it was just a police rifle. Why would they be examining their own rifle? Then there are reports of a Mauser. Even a CIA docment produced on 11/25/63 describe a "7.35 mm Mauser, Model 91, 1938."

Oh, PLEASE! See Mr. Carruthers' comments. So now somehow Wallace goes UP two flights to the roof, abandons his rifle (which doesn't look like a rifle, but a police shotgun, which, for some reason the DPD decided to hide all evidence of, but which fired how many shots of some unknown caliber causing damage that nobody has been able to see, making sounds that nobody ever heard, and producing rounds that nobody ever found?), then went down to the ground floor . . . Mr. Van Noord, when will it dawn on you that you are spinning a FANTASY here?

You CTers are a piece of work. When it's pointed out that some scenario is not possible, or absurd, you simply shift and pick up some other bit of nonsense; the only certainty you have is that there was a conspiracy. You can't describe it, but by god, you know there was one. And now you're recycling back to the beginning, going back to the same old crap that's been completely rebutted. A "Mauser", for Pete's sake? That tired old canard was dead decades ago. Read Bugliosi, for crying out loud.

I asked you for a scenario, and you're disclosing it bit by bit, resisting the production of every scrap of it. You think Wallace was there, you think he fired a rifle, then went to the roof where he discarded it. Maybe in another dozen exchanges you'll tell us where he came from and where he went to, and who his co-conspirators were, and so on.

"<"escape the TSBD and Dealey Plaza without being seen"> Not quite, Mr. Axelson. Richard Carr and James Worrell both describe a man fitting Wallace's description leave the building. and Brennan's original description of the person he saw on the sixth floor more resembles Wallace than Oswald. Oswald was 150 pounds soaking wet. He was listed as 140. Oswald was 5' 9". Wallace was 5' 11" 180 pounds. Brennan's description was 5' 10", 165-175 pounds. "

Oh, PLEASE. Eyewitness estimates of height and weight are about as reliable as Groden's testimony at the OJ civil trial.

<" and I'll just have to rely on the FBI's conclusion on this one.">
What reply, Mr. Axelson? There is nothing written from the FBI stating it is not a match. Good luck finding it."

Don't even need to hunt for it. My source is R. Van Noord: "The FBI . . . issued a verbal `no match'." I believe you on this. I accept that you are telling us the truth. I believe you are a credible source on this point. I trust your representation that this did, in fact, happen. You say it happened, and that's good enough for me.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 8:39:13 AM PDT
Mr. Axelson:

<"You CTers are a piece of work"> And how about the LNers? You believe bullets can do magical things, dismiss voluminous evidence that is contrary to your theory as not credible, kooky, zany, you name it. Then, you expect anyone who believes in conspiracy to posit a theory then prove it. And, if they don't prove it, anything that person says is dismissed out of hand. Mr. Axelson, that is DENIAL.

It's funny that when we debate about a posthumous trial and Mr. Carruthers stated there was no accomodation for that in our legal system that you never pointed out the principle of abatement, which I fully admit, I did not know. Lee Harvey Oswald, in the eyes of the law, is innocent because he CANNOT be proven guilty.
Given that, the WC report is just a theory and can NEVER be proven under the laws of our country.

<"Read Bugliosi, for crying out loud."> I did. And he has ZERO crediblity. He writes a "book for the ages." He says on the back of the jacket "it confronts and destroys every one of the conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination, exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic and outright deceptions." Now how can you do all that, Mr. Axelson, when you avoid a mountain of evidence? Mr. Bugliosi is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Off the top of my head (without going into the large amount of trees he needlessly killed), he fails to even mention in his book two people that have very good evidence contradicting his. Doug Weldon is an expert on the limousine and has strong corroborating evidence of a hole in the windshield. Weldon GAVE Bugliosi his work, and his name is never mentioned in the 2700+ page morass of information. He can footnote Chappaquiddick, but not Weldon. Same for Dr. E Forrest Chapman. He examined the shell eviedence and found CE 543 was dry fired, struck twice with the firing pin. Not even mentioned in his book. How can you make a claim like Bugliosi and not tackle crucial evidence? Simple, just like every WC defender, you just ignore it so it doesn't exist.

And, Mr. Axelson, you answered your own question. You cannot confirm or deny another CLPEs work unless you know their justification. And you simply do not. But, I will keep you posted.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 8:49:58 AM PDT
Mr. Carruthers:

The fragments collected from John Connally's chest and wrist, combined with the large fragment left in his leg (witness his x-ray) indicate the bullet shed more material that it possilby could have. The weight of CE 399 is 158.5 grains. A fully pristine 6.5 mm missile, taken from the same lot as CE 399, weighed 161 grains. The bullet loses 1-2 grains through the firing process.

As for "nearly pristine": The bullet is slightly deformed at its base and only under close inspection. Tests proved that just firing the bullet into a cotton wad produced the same results.

As far as the Mentesana tape, I agree, far from proof of a conspiracy, but also proof that at least one other gun was found that day, when WC defenders say no other guns were found.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 10:40:28 AM PDT
empty the prisons -- Axelson believes eyewitness testimony isn't reliable.....

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 10:42:46 AM PDT
Where are you finding these Nutter freaks of nature, David? They have to be the last defenders of Reclaiming Camelot, er History, on the face of the earth.

Carry on!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 3:34:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2008 5:05:44 AM PDT
Richard V.N. uttered:

>>> "Oh, by the way David, he {John J. Howlett of the Secret Service during his LHO 're-creations' in March 1964} also didn't stay at the window, like Howard Brennan said he {Lee Harvey Oswald} did {on November 22, 1963}." <<<

Once again, the exact timing of Oswald's post-assassination movements will never be known for sure. We can only guess. But if you want to tack on an extra 8 or 10 seconds to Howlett's time, feel free.

But while doing that, keep in mind that Oswald almost certainly was moving FASTER than Agent Howlett was moving during those re-constructions that were done several months later.

BTW, here's a freeze-frame image from the Mal Couch film, showing Officer Marrion Baker heading toward the Book Depository front entrance:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3641.jpg

>>> "What about the Dillard photo of the east window that shows a figure in the window, shot 30 SECONDS after the head shot." <<<

Tom Dillard's photo shows no such "figure". That's your over-active CTer imagination at work there. I've seen the "enhanced" blow-ups. I see no human figure.

It's funny you didn't mention the WEST-end window, too. Because many CTers, including Robert Groden (the photo "expert" who was ripped to shreds at the O.J. Simpson civil trial), think there's a guy (with a HUGE head evidently) visible at the WEST-end window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository about 30 seconds after the shooting.

But, yes, I've also seen the colored-in enhancements done of the EAST-end (Oswald's) window too, with some CTers believing there's a person visible at the east end as well.

Here's the supposed "West-End Conspirator" (after just the right amount of photographic "enhancement" has been applied to the photo):

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5559.gif

When a person starts coloring in all sorts of stuff in B&W photographs, sure, you can probably see a "man" in almost any photo you want to see one in.

Take this ridiculously-overdrawn "Badge Man" photo for instance (below). I see Elvis wearing big glasses and holding a microphone in this picture too. But nobody else does. I wonder why?.....

http://members.optushome.com.au/tnorth/badgeman1.jpg

>>> "What about Lillian Mooneyham's testimony that she saw a person in the east window 3 minutes after the head shot?" <<<

That's a perfect example of how human beings fail to estimate TIME very well. Let's take witness J.C. Price as another example. He thought the gunshots were--get this--possibly as much as FIVE MINUTES apart! (See what I mean?)

Plus: What kind of idiot/boob plotters and assassins were in Dealey Plaza on November 22 anyhow? They shoot JFK from different guns and different directions in the Plaza (per most CT accounts of the event), even though their single "patsy" is supposed to be in the Depository ONLY (obviously).

And now, per Mooneyham, a gunman (or surely somebody who was part of the "plot") decides he'll hang around the "window of death", in full view of witnesses, for THREE minutes after the shooting???

How can a reasonable person think that Mooneyham actually saw an ASSASSIN (or even an assassin's helper) in any window three full minutes after the assassination (assuming her time estimate is spot-on accurate, that is)?

In a few words -- No reasonable person could possibly believe such a crazy thing.

>>> "Sorry, David. Oswald WAS coming from the first floor, and that's the only way Baker could have seen him coming through the vestibule." <<<

Bull. You've utilized your own selective pro-conspiracy interpretation of these things to arrive at your ONE & ONLY way it could have happened....while completely ignoring the best evidence and ignoring common sense.

In short, you cannot micro-analyze the movements of two men whose EXACT, TO-THE-SECOND timelines can never be known. Period. And yet you still insist that you can do this with ultra precision. I can only scratch my cabeza and wonder....why?

>>> "You have a timing issue, David. And it favors Oswald's innocence and you offer no counter." <<<

I only have a "timing issue" if I choose to totally ignore the VERY BEST EVIDENCE (the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence, that is) which tells any reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the lone assassin of President Kennedy.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Bugliosi's book (yet again). He said it in fine fashion when he wrote these words on page #953 of "Reclaiming History":

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 7:50:57 PM PDT
David:

You have a timing issue. You cannot resolve it. All of your posturing doesn't change that fact.

Bringing up Bugliosi's quotes only lessens your crediblity. He has ZERO credibility. He has ignored voluminous evidence and has told half-truths to back his prosecutors brief.

Live with it, David. It's a fact. Oswald was where he said he was. The WC didn't prove it, and neither can you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2007 11:06:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 28, 2007 11:51:20 PM PDT
>>> "You have a timing issue. You cannot resolve it. All of your posturing doesn't change that fact. Bringing up Bugliosi's quotes only lessens your crediblity. He has ZERO credibility..." <<<

<excising remaining nonsense spouted by Mr. Van Noord>

Richard,

OK. Whatever.

I can see that normal common sense & logic will never penetrate your CT-filled skull. You're not alone, though. Many CTers have similar difficulties with common sense when it relates to their subjective arguments. For instance, all the CT-Kooks at the McAdams forum are in your same boat. And at the Lancer forum too (save Jerry Dealey).

Happy CT hunting.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 4:26:31 AM PDT
David:

Happy trials. And say "hi" to the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy.

And, the word "normal" is a very subjective, nebulous term. A person living in a padded room could consider himself "normal".

No need to contact Debra now. Calling people "kooks" who don't have commnon sense or logic is certainly a way to endear yourself to people.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 6:21:57 AM PDT
Is the shotgun in the Mentesana film part of the volumes of evidence Bugliosi ignored? The reason I'm asking is that perhaps Bugliosi ignored many of these things because they are entirely irrelevant.

I was amused that you have gall to say Bugliosi has no credibility after referring me to that Mentesana film. At least you have a lot of nerve, if not a lot of sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 10:18:43 AM PDT
Murphy says:
Mr Van Noord-

I also checked out the Mentensana film, wondering if you might, finally be on to something. Why are you wasting our time?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 10:31:06 AM PDT
Mr. Fuller:

you did it on your own...you wasted your own time.

I never offered the film as proof posiive of anything. However, the WC defenders say "no other was found anywhere, ever." Well, it certainly is funny you have detectives pointing to the roof, then examining a gun.
And if it was a DPD issue gun, why would they be examining their own gun?
An, as far as other guns, this from John S. Craig's "The Guns of Dealey Plaza":
"Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle has been reported to have been found on the sixth floor and a lower floor of the Depository.

A 7.65 Mauser was reported by several investigating authorities, including Dallas Police officers, to have been found on the sixth floor.

An FBI envelope dated 12/2/63 was released in 1995 with a label declaring the contents as a 7.65 rifle shell found in Dealey Plaza. The CIA produced a document stating that the rifle involved in the crime was a Mauser.

A Johnson 30.06 rifle may have been found in Dealey Plaza soon after the shooting and several people known to be associated with the weapon were questioned by the FBI. A man who declared he was part of the plot saw at least one 30.06, scopeless rifle on the sixth floor. Either a Mannlicher-Carcano or a Mauser was found abandoned in an Indiana hotel on November 25, 1963 by a man who may have had associations with Communist organizations and Oswald.

An unknown rifle with no scope, no sling, and considerably longer barrel than Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano was filmed being taken from the roof of the Depository.

Two eyewitnesses saw men with rifles behind the fence on the grassy knoll and oneeyewitness saw a man running behind the fence on the grassy knoll with what may have been a handgun. One witness saw men with rifles or shotguns on the Triple Overpass the morning of the 22nd. Two witnesses saw bullets hit the ground that appeared to have been fired from the area of the grassy knoll.

A .38 calibre pistol in a paper bag, initially believed to be found in Dealey Plaza, was actually found somewhere several blocks from Dealey Plaza on the morning of November 23, 1963. Though the FBI investigated this handgun, no report on the conclusion of the investigation has ever been made public. Handguns were allegedly deposited in a vehicle within a few hundred feet of the shooting just hours before the shooting. Several witnesses of the shooting thought they heard a pistol fired. A man who claims he was one of the "tramps" says that he and the other two tramps were in possession of handguns when they were apprehended by police in the railyard behind Dealey Plaza.

Numerous witnesses to the shooting heard gunshots that were spaced so closely, and sounded different from each other, that it is questionable whether all the shooting could have been done by Oswald's bolt-action rifle.

Another FBI report, released in December of 1995, describes a possible illegal arms sale that was planned in Dallas on November 21, 1963 by a Cuban activist whose organization wished to mount an anti-Castro operation, an operation that would go ahead "as soon as we take care of Kennedy."

Dallas jail inmate Jack Elrod claimed that Oswald told him of having knowledge of a gun-running scheme that involved Jack Ruby. Many men, with a direct or peripheral involvement in the assassination, were allegedly involved in gunrunning: Oswald, Ruby, Masen, Shaw, Ferrie.

A CIA contract employee believes that four 7.35 Mannlicher rifles, he purchased and altered for David Ferrie, were used in the assassination.

Several witnesses in Dealey Plaza saw a man, or men, with a rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html

Access the report for all attribution.

I think this puts to rest at least the fact other guns were found in Dealey Plaza. We obviously don't agree on the rest.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 10:31:15 AM PDT
D. Axelson says:
Mr. Van Noord -

This analysis is based on a review of the fingerprints shown on http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/23rd_Issue/breakthru.html

These are admittedly poor-quality reproductions, but I believe there is enough detail to enable ANYONE to conclude that the two prints are NOT a match.

1.) If you take point #4 as your starting point, then find points #6 and #7. These appear to be a kind of "island", where the ridge splits and then rejoins on the Q print (there doesn't appear to be a rejoining at point # 7 on the K print, but leave that aside):

On the Q print, #6 and #7 are clearly on the third ridge below #4.

However, on the K print, they are on (depending on how you count), either the fourth or fifth ridge below #4.

End of discussion; these are different prints. "But wait! There's more!"

2.) Look at the ridge immediately below #5. On the K, this ridge goes a short distance, and then clearly ends. But on the Q, that same ridge trundles all the way to the right edge of the print.

Once again, proof that these prints are from two different fingers.

3.) To get from #4 to #5, you have to go "down" on K; on Q, you go straight left. While some distortion of ridges is to be expected (because of finger pressure, etc.), no amount of pressure is going to move points around to be in a totally different orientation from one another.

4.) Immediately to the left of #7 on Q, there is another ridge split. On K, there is no split; the ridge continues on.

5.) If you start at point #3, then go five rows in a 1 o'clock direction on Q, there's a point where two ridges join (it's messy, but to the left of this point, there are clearly four ridges, to the right there are clearly only three). On K, there's nothing five ridges in a 1 o'clock direction from #3 but parallel ridges with no joins.

6.) Immediately above #7 on the Q print, there's a ridge end. Immediately above #7 on the K print, there's a complete ridge, with no end points anywhere around.

Now I'm looking at terrible reproductions, but even on these, I can see discrepancies, and if even one of the items I listed is correct, then there's no match and these are from different fingers.

The key thing, though, Mr. Van Noord, is that this is something YOU can see and verify yourself. Much of the scientific evidence is determinable by experts only. You and I lack the expertise to do a neutron activation analysis, and even if we could run the equipment, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you what results were significant and which were not.

But this? You can count ridges, Mr. Van Noord, as well as any fingerprint expert in the country. And if you do, you'll see that these two prints, upon which depend your whole claim that Mac Wallace was present in the TSBD, are not the same. And once that happens, who knows? Maybe it will start to dawn on you that the conspiracy community has been playing you for a fool for decades.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 10:37:14 AM PDT
D. Axelson says:
Ah, Mr. Healy, mis-quoting yet again, I see.

I did not say that "eyewitness testimony isn't reliable". What I described as unreliable was a particular form of eyewitness testimony: "Eyewitness estimates of height and weight are about as reliable as Groden's testimony at the OJ civil trial."

And since you agree with me that Groden was unreliable as a witness at the OJ trial, would you also agree with me that he is unreliable in the rest of his pronouncements?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 10:43:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 29, 2007 10:46:16 AM PDT
Mr. Axelson:

Amazing! I have run this by a person who is much more qualified than you. That person then pulled his analysis and is waiting for all relevent information. He said it is possible for a match, but he would need to see the justification for doing so. It may not be a match as well.
But I find it truly amazing that you can provide this type of analysis without even having the documentation and the original prints. And, it is commonplace for any CLPE that comes into question to relate their methodology.
<"End of discussion; these are different prints. "But wait! There's more!"">
Hardly, Mr. Axelson. You are not an expert and, after whining about the fact I labled you an "expert" in an earlier post and twisted what you had said, you then portray yourself as an expert.
Mr. Axelson, I am trying to obtain the information and have it analyzed. By an independent expert with ALL relevent information. By a person who initally believed it was NOT a match.
You see, Mr. Axelson, I am willing to accept the decision.
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is irelevent. If this person says it is not a match, I will accept that. If he says it is, you'll still find some way to discredit a person with impeccable credentials.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 11:18:33 AM PDT
I'm at you Lone Nutter service.... Groden leaves a lot to be desired... as well as David Von Pein, Vinnie daBugliosi.... things are a-chang'n

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 2:13:30 PM PDT
D. Axelson says:
Mr. Van Noord -

"Amazing! I have run this by a person who is much more qualified than you. That person then pulled his analysis and is waiting for all relevent information. He said it is possible for a match, but he would need to see the justification for doing so. It may not be a match as well.
But I find it truly amazing that you can provide this type of analysis without even having the documentation and the original prints."

No, it's not amazing, Mr. Van Noord. I kept telling you that this was not rocket science. All it takes is a basic understanding of fingerprints and the ability to count. That's all. And if a non-expert can find six items showing a non-match, using crappy photos, it's pretty clear there's no match.

"And, it is commonplace for any CLPE that comes into question to relate their methodology.
<"End of discussion; these are different prints. "But wait! There's more!"">
Hardly, Mr. Axelson. You are not an expert and, after whining about the fact I labled you an "expert" in an earlier post and twisted what you had said, you then portray yourself as an expert."

No - I'm NOT an expert, and I never claimed to be one. This is basic stuff, Mr. Van Noord, the kind of thing you can do yourself. It may take an expert to classify a fingerprint, or to find a match, but anybody can look at points of similarity on a purported match and count ridges. Once you understand that there is nothing magical or mysterious about fingerprints, it's pretty easy to see whether an expert's got it right or not.

"Mr. Axelson, I am trying to obtain the information and have it analyzed. By an independent expert with ALL relevent information. By a person who initally believed it was NOT a match.
You see, Mr. Axelson, I am willing to accept the decision."

"Who you gonna believe? Some purported expert or your lyin' eyes?" Just LOOK at the photos, Mr. Van Noord. Just look at the things I listed. If you see three ridges on one photo, where there are four on another, then you'll know for yourself. That's the great thing about this piece of evidence. You can see for yourself that you've been conned.

"I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is irelevent. If this person says it is not a match, I will accept that. If he says it is, you'll still find some way to discredit a person with impeccable credentials."

It's hardly irrelevant. If the fingerprint match goes, your whole theory about Mac Wallace goes. And if you see that whole house o' cards coming down, maybe, just maybe, you'll be willing to give a little more credence to the LN scenario, an a little less prone to accept the outrageous claims that CTers make.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 2:23:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 29, 2007 2:32:12 PM PDT
Mr. Axelson:

<"you'll be willing to give a little more credence to the LN scenario,">
I have. And it is impossible.

So you're telling me a man who spent numerous hours on this print, with much more experience than you and a man who has performed hundreds of matches and has never been questioned, who has been corroborated, I should believe you over him? I don't think so.

If it's not true, Mr. Axelson, then it's not true. I can accept that. You posts are dripping with desperation, hoping it won't be a match. Don't worry, I can handle the truth, whatever it may be.
You admit you don't have best evidence, you don't have the CLPEs justification, you have none of the back up info.
Thanks for the input, Mr. Axelson. However, I'll pass on your analysis and wait for ALL THE INFO and an analysis from a person whose credentials cannot be impeached, since that is what the typical LNer does, they atack the character of someone to discredit anything s/he has to say.

Case in point, the following post on Lifton.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 2:28:09 PM PDT
D. Axelson says:
Excellent, Mr. Healy - can we move on to Mr. Lifton and agree that he's pretty silly as well?

We're having so much fun agreeing here, that I almost hate to disagree with you. I'll agree that the tone adopted by Mr. Von Pein and Mr. Bugliosi may not be to everyone's taste, but I do come down on their side of the debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 3:00:33 PM PDT
Murphy says:
Mr Van Noord-
Mr Axelson is hardly dripping in desperation, in fact it is fun to follow the thread as he dismantles your Mac Wallace Scenario. I followed his analysis and see exactly what he is saying on the prints and he is correct. Any objective person reading the thread will conclude that you are the desperate one and Mr Axelson is having a grand ole time getting your goat. You are working harder than a one armed paper hanger trying to defend the indefensable.

I found this quote of yours interesting, "Amazing! I have run this by a person who is much more qualified than you. That person then pulled his analysis and is waiting for all relevent information." Mr Van Noord, did this person make an analysis, I assume he did if he has pulled it, and is now waiting on the relevant information? Was his earlier analysis based on irrelevant information? Pretty interesting.

All you need to do is follow Mr Axelsons analysis on the pictures,it is clearly not the prints of the same person. You dont need someone to obtain the relevant info, it is right in front of your eyes.

I am eagerly awaiting your next ct incorrect theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007 5:42:45 PM PDT
D. Axelson says:
"So you're telling me a man who spent numerous hours on this print, with much more experience than you and a man who has performed hundreds of matches and has never been questioned, who has been corroborated, I should believe you over him? I don't think so."

No, Mr. Van Noord. I'm telling you that you should learn to think for yourself. I'm telling you that in many instances, that if you apply yourself (sometimes even just a trivial amount), you can learn enough to confirm or rebut what a supposed expert is telling you. I'm telling you that this is one of those cases, that you can learn enough about fingerprinting to tell when someone is telling you the truth, and when he's pulling the wool over your eyes. I'm telling you that even someone that you disagree with can give you good information, and treat you like you're capable of understanding it.

If 50 experts tell you that that fingerprint is (or is not) a match, you may well believe them. But if you understand what they are talking about, and verify it for yourself, you're going to KNOW what the truth is. Personally, I would recommend the latter course.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  25
Total posts:  1394
Initial post:  Jul 2, 2007
Latest post:  Apr 28, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi (Hardcover - May 15, 2007)
3.6 out of 5 stars   (341)