A Guilty Man

[Thomas Graves]

Are you absolving the evil, evil, evil DPD's role in creating the BYPs?  If Marina was telling the truth about taking 1 BYP and burning another, then someone else must have taken them. Either the DPD took them (like their inexplicable re-enactments and cutouts) or one of Oswald's handlers did (Paine or DeMohrenschildt?).

The DPD are up to their eyeballs re the BYPs. They were sheep-dipping Oswald but all the photos they took with the Imperial Reflex could not resolve the commie lit headline or capture Oswald's face in focus. If one more of you amateurs tries to talk about optics and focal planes, etc. then I'm going to call you on it. Know what you are talking about before you offer up lame excuses why CE 133A looks different than the rest. So why is it so important to you LNers that ALL the photos were snapped with the IR? Why would that make Oswald a lone nut? Why couldn't Marina have taken the money shot with another camera? Is it because you want her "revised" testimony to be true that she alone took all the photos? As soon as you establish that she was lying, then all bets are off. BAAAA!

My analysis doesn't prove CE 133A was taken with another camera since I can't experiment with the IR to know for sure. The HSCA tested the IR and found the imagery distorted significantly outside of the sweet spot of the lens and concluded this may have accounted for the differences between 133 A & C. But they never did a formal study comparing the over all lens distortion between A & C. If you knew anything about photogrammetry you would know that distortion is like a photo's watermark.  Any differences cast doubt that the photos were shot with the same lens. Photogrammetry uses camera/lens parameters to calculate, identify and correct for optical distortion created by an imperfect lens. Spherical aberration is the #1 culprit for distorting images at the periphery of the lens. Cheap and wide angle lenses tend to have a smaller "sweet spot" where the distortion is minimal.

We know that Roscoe White didn't use an enlarger lens to correct for distortion because the negative for CE 133A exists, and it appears to match the print's distortion. And what about the unregistered photo of CE 133C found in the possession of White's widow? And where are all the damn negatives?  Only a diehard LNer thinks that the DPD weren't sheep-dipping Oswald to be the patsy with the BYPs.  CE 133A was the money shot, by design and Marina likely had nothing to do with it. And if that was the case then the BYPs were all part of sheep-dipping the patsy.

ps. I'm not sure what point Mytton was trying to make up thread but I'm sure it was more obfuscation.

Jack,

Why would any rational person expect probable KGB agent Marina Nikolayevna (What? She knew her father's name, after all??) Prusakova to tell the truth about anything?

George DeMohrenschildt?  You mean the guy whom the FBI had investigated years earlier on suspicion of being a Communist agent, and whom CIA Counterintelligence Staff analyst Clare Edward Petty believed was a long-term KGB "illegal," based on his close reading of some WW II VENONA decrypts?

That George DeMohrenschildt?

LOL

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

What kind of evidence would suffice for you?

Well, since you have provided NONE AT ALL, it doesn’t much matter, does it?

[John Iacoletti]

Hung up on credentials? How about the Haags?

How about them?

I’m hung up? You’re the one who invoked “expertise” (which you apparently define as agreeing with what you want to believe) as a rhetorical device.

I didn't say that.

Not those words, but you actually used “ You can't prove it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher” to try to argue that it was found on Connally’s stretcher.

According to experts, the lack of blood and tissue on a bullet wouldn't by itself exclude it from having passed through a human body.

But what is your evidence (any evidence) that CE 399 went through anybody, much less both Kennedy and Connally?

[John Iacoletti]

We know that Roscoe White didn't use an enlarger lens to correct for distortion because the negative for CE 133A exists, and it appears to match the print's distortion.

It doesn’t exist anymore (if it ever did). The HSCA couldn’t find it.

[Jerry Organ]

How about them?

You respect their work for NOVA, then.

I’m hung up?

Well I had no problem with Dr. Lattimer and I don't see how his medical specialty was some drawback to his hands-on ballistic research, much of it presented in an excellent book called "Lincoln and Kennedy."

You’re the one who invoked “expertise” (which you apparently define as agreeing with what you want to believe) as a rhetorical device.

I don't define it that way. And I've asked CTs repeatedly on this board to provide comparable experts.

Not those words, but you actually used “ You can't prove it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher” to try to argue that it was found on Connally’s stretcher.

No I didn't. And it was a reasonable response to a statement that the bullet wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, as if it was a settled matter. Why don't you ask Mr. Trojan for substantiation or provide some yourself? Rather than pretend you're some "neutral" observer which somehow makes you "smarter" and more insightful than those who decide to make a decision on the evidence.

But what is your evidence (any evidence) that CE 399 went through anybody, much less both Kennedy and Connally?

As far as I'm concerned, the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher. The Italians hadn't landed in Dallas that day, so what else would account for a Carcano bullet being there other than it had been fired at the limousine during the shooting?

[John Iacoletti]

I don't define it that way. And I've asked CTs repeatedly on this board to provide comparable experts.

There isn’t an expert in the world who can tell you what bullets hit who and when.

No I didn't. And it was a reasonable response to a statement that the bullet wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, as if it was a settled matter.

The guy who found it said that it was the other stretcher. Your only argument is that it’s not impossible that he was wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher. The Italians hadn't landed in Dallas that day, so what else would account for a Carcano bullet being there other than it had been fired at the limousine during the shooting?

Lots of things could account for it. That doesn’t mean that it’s rational to just arbitrarily pick one. It can’t even be proven that CE 399 was the bullet that Tomlinson found.

[Jerry Organ]

There isn’t an expert in the world who can tell you what bullets hit who and when.

Not what Lattimer, "Target Car" and the Haags claimed to be doing anyway. They were duplicating a Carcano bullet passing though replicas of humans to see if slowing and tumbling of the bullet would result in a condition similar to CE 399. That's what rational people do in a criminal case with a mystery; they assume nothing until they've conducted experiments and tests.

The guy who found it said that it was the other stretcher. Your only argument is that it’s not impossible that he was wrong.

Can you prove he wasn't wrong in that regard?

Lots of things could account for it. That doesn’t mean that it’s rational to just arbitrarily pick one.

Feel free to present an alternative scenario that's more rational.

It can’t even be proven that CE 399 was the bullet that Tomlinson found.

Many things in a crime case can't be proven conclusively or to an absolute. There's no time travel yet, and most events weren't captured on film. Human memory is fallible.

Reasonable people use common sense to assess the totality of the evidence.

[Jerry Freeman]

The case was solved on 11/22/63. 

<<< Oswald's rifle rwaaaak

Rudolph spent five years on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list until he was caught in 2003. 

So...it took the FBI 5 yrs to catch Rudolph but then it only took the Keystone Cops 80 minutes to grab Oswald [40 yrs earlier]