Tom Gram

For $80 per year you can download to your heart’s desire and get literally years worth of reading material. For $40 per year you get infinite searches and can read whatever documents you want online. If you enjoy the JFK case there’s no better investment for your own entertainment. I don’t drink lattes either - I’d rather spend 10 seconds once a year to put that small amount of money towards an endlessly interesting and rewarding hobby and support the best JFK research organization out there.

I just flipped through it briefly but looks like there’s some really interesting stuff in there. Great find.

Seriously. An MFF subscription is a must for anyone doing actual JFK research. The annual fee is indeed worth it many times over. It sounds like Richard needs a Pro membership to enable .pdf downloads through. That is a bit more expensive - coming out to the extravagant price of $79.95 per year. That’s less than $7 a month - literally the same as a single Starbucks latte. I’m not exactly swimming in dough either but c’mon guys. How much time does the average JFK nut spend studying the case? This isn’t exactly a casual hobby if you want to actually learn anything. Kinda funny side note though. I think the “designed by sadists” comment is ludicrous - from a pricing and web design perspective MFF is freaking phenomenal - but the actual monthly price of a pro membership comes out to $6.66.

“Most popular complete theory” doesn’t really have the same ring to it. Also theory completeness is a math thing so it could get a bit confusing. I get what you’re trying to say and am just being annoying, but you could’ve just said “Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory of who killed JFK”. That’s probably accurate and makes the same point you seem to have been going for with this pointless thread.

I saw a Waldron interview a couple years ago and got curious so I made the mistake of buying his book Hidden History or whatever it is in a Kindle sale. Good lord. That was quite possibly the worst JFK book I’ve ever read in my life, especially on New Orleans. It was truly painful to get through.

Please enlighten us on your definition of the word “theory”. Here are a few dictionary definitions for reference: Merriam Webster - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation - an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another Cambridge - something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation: - a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong: So according to the dictionary at least you are literally wrong.

I’d buy the book.

So according to Bill Brown, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute.

This is kinda interesting. I thought it was just the one lift card /200 from the window ledge, but apparently this lift /286 is also from the window ledge: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49474 I don’t have any reason to doubt its origin, but I’m curious how Myers figured that out from an unlabeled, stand alone card. The /200 lift is lumped in with the labeled fender lift /326 at least in a record titled “Fingerprints from Tippit’s car”: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/ I haven’t seen anything similar for /286. I’m still pretty curious about /200, since it looks like there could be some partial palm prints in there, but Lutz apparently didn’t comment on what types of prints are visible on that card: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49758/

I’m no fingerprint expert, but considering Lutz’s findings and just looking at the fender lift, Barnes’ testimony is a bit hard to believe. I think it’s more likely the DPD realized the prints didn’t belong to Oswald and decided they were “unusable” to implicate him in the Tippit killing.

I knew that part, but I’ve never seen anything discussing the prints lifted from the window ledge. The card I linked to in the bottom right looks like it should be the window ledge lift, but it’s not labeled like the card that says “from right front fender of squad car” and I’ve never seen its origin confirmed. Again this is pure speculation, and I know next to nothing about fingerprints, but if the card is indeed from the window ledge, and the print pattern is consistent with Markham’s testimony, it would add support to the notion that the prints were left by the killer. That’s why I’m curious. I’m not convinced the Tippit murder was premeditated though. It seems like the killer might have been hoping to talk himself out of it then realized he was screwed when Tippit got out of the car. Either that or he wasn’t particularly sophisticated, didn’t think or care about leaving fingerprints, or knew somehow the cops would ignore it. Bill will love this, but I’m not even 100% convinced the Tippit killer wasn’t Oswald. I think there’s a very compelling case that Oswald didn’t do it, and the prints are a major component in that, but like everything else in the JFKA it’s impossible to know for certain. With a competent attorney, I think Oswald almost certainly would’ve been acquitted at trial for the Tippit murder. The reasonable doubt is definitely there, but it’s a pretty big leap from doubt of guilt to conclusive proof of innocence.

Your entire comment is spot on, but this scene is just hysterical. Thanks for the laugh. I don’t really have anything else to add on the prints or Burt. You said it all already much better than I could. I do have one question though I asked Bill a few comments up. I’m assuming the bottom right card here is the window lift, but I don’t really know: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/?q=Fingerprints Do we know what types of prints those are, like right palm, left index finger, etc.? I have the Myers book but my kindle is dead at the moment. I just thought it kinda resembled Markham’s described hand posture, but it’s hard to tell without scale, etc.

How did I guess? And your logic never ceases to amaze me Bill. You don’t think the most likely person to touch the car, is the only person seen right next to the car, who was witnessed physically touching the car? I thought you might just be avoiding it but now I’m not sure you understand the concept of probability at all. I’ll type this slow, so you can follow. Just because no eyewitness said they saw the killer physically touch the front fender of the car, doesn’t mean the killer MUST - a term you should be able to comprehend - have NOT touched the front fender of the car. Do you honestly think that’s what witnesses would’ve focused on or noticed, especially if the fender contact occurred during the actual shooting? The killer was witnessed physically touching one of two locations on the car where prints were lifted twenty minutes later, and in direct proximity to the other. There is zero evidence that anyone else was in proximity to either of those two locations. Yet to Bill Brown, some imaginary phantom person is more likely to have left the prints than the killer?

Your apparent obsession with needing to “owe” something and resulting attitude led two people to think you were pulling a Myers - not an unreasonable assumption - but you did eventually share the transcript so I apologize too for hassling you about it. If anyone’s made an ass out of themselves on here though it’s you for your ludicrous comments on Johnny Cairns. I’m glad you don’t think every lineup ID is created equal, but why are you still avoiding commenting on Markham specifically? Do you think her lineup identification is credible or not? It’s a simple question. No one is disputing there is physical evidence against Oswald. The relevant question however is not who specifically was involved in evidence tampering i.e. who switched the shells, but whether there is reason to suspect that any evidence tampering occurred. As Greg and many others have shown, the answer to that question is most certainly “yes”. The DPD were also historically corrupt and are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases to nail a suspect. It’s not like we’re going to get a freaking videotape of an officer swapping evidence, Bill. With all the chain of custody holes, evidence identification issues, unanswered questions, etc., a reasonable suspicion is more than warranted here. Combined with exculpatory evidence like the fingerprints we have reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Tippit. On the fingerprints, no one has claimed that Markham’s observations are infallible, but you seem to think it is an absolute certainty that she was incorrect about seeing the killer touch the car. You know that how, exactly? Her statements on this were very consistent and credible, and prints were lifted from that exact spot twenty minutes later. This is speculation, but the apparent lift from the window ledge even kinda looks like the hand posture she described. Do we know what types of prints we’re looking at in the bottom right card? https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/?q=Fingerprints You seem to avoid the concept of probability at all costs, but try to consider the fingerprints in isolation for a minute. If you weren’t already fully convinced that Oswald did it, what would you say is the probability that Markham saw exactly what she said she saw? You seem to be operating under the illusion that she must have been wrong, and must have made an assumption, but you really have no idea, and neither do I. All we can do is try to evaluate the evidence objectively, and the facts are as follows: 1. Prints from a single individual were lifted from the exact spots where the killer was observed in close proximity to the car twenty minutes earlier. 2. There are eyewitnesses to the killer physically placing his hands on the car in one of the two spots where prints were lifted. Who is the most likely person to have left those prints? Your token strawman response is that there is no proof the prints “MUST” belong to the killer. Ya don’t say. That’s not the question.

Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with instead of you, of all people, supposedly getting offended by a “smartass comment” by probably the most polite person on this entire forum. Your “reputation” with me is fine. Your logic is not. Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable? Cause that’s what it sounds like. It’s a very simple question. Do you believe Markham’s lineup identification is credible or not? I’m amazed I have to spell this out, but the difference between Markham’s lineup ID and her statements about the killer touching the car is 1.) Markham said the killer put his arms on the window from day one; 2) She clarified what she meant in her affidavit in subsequent interviews: hands on the window ledge with arms crossed, and even acted it out; 3) she stated that observation confidently, specifically, and never wavered; and 4) what she described would’ve been clearly visible from her position, and a heck of a lot easier than facial recognition. Her lineup identification on the other hand is about as worthless as it gets. Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure, but the probability that she saw what she said she saw is a hell of a lot higher than her lineup “identification” of Oswald. Period.