Dale Myers and his World of Illusion

[Steve Roe]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Roe, what a joke.  This is the man who wrote one of the most sickening, nauseating, gross pieces of tripe I have ever read about Sebastian LaTona.  Now please note, I went head to head with Von Pein for about a year over Bugliosi.  So when I use those words to describe what Roe wrote, that means something.  What he wrote about LaTona could be studied at Langley in the art of black propaganda.  In its own way it was as bad as what PBS and Mike Sullivan and Russo did in 1993 and their repeat of their JFK special in 2003.  For this man to get up on a soapbox and declare himself a paragon of morality for the living and dead, I mean, in light of just that fact,  its something out of Sunday morning comic strips. But that is how fatal LaTona is in this case to the official story, and that is why we had a police investigator, Mr. Edwards, present that evidence.

Mr. DiEugenio your serious lack of knowledge of the case is showing again.  

Here's what I wrote about the Sebastian Latona print examination:

Then Edwards makes a point about the Palm Print lifted by Day, saying Latona "there was no evidence that the print was even taken." Sounds sinister, right? Of course Stone zeroed in on that comment to arouse suspicions of his viewers. So let's see what Sebastian Latona said about it in his Warren Commission Testimony.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

Mr. Latona. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a hacking, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----

Mr. Latona. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the impression actually is removed?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Representative Ford. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it is.

Representative Ford. In the fingerprinting business?

Mr. Latona. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?

Mr. Latona. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.

Mr. Eisenberg. And were you told anything about its origin?

Mr. Latona. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. Latona. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. Eisenberg. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of LEE HARVEY OSWALD1

As you can see of course there was no evidence of the print being lifted, because the dusting powder on the print is totally lifted off with the cellophane. To a casual viewer, the impression Stone implies, there was no evidence of a print EVEN BEING LIFTED. 

In addition, there is more testimony to help explain this:

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?

Mr. Latona.

We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Mr. Dulles.

Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----

Mr. Latona.

Completely.

Mr. Dulles.

The original print?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona.

What is nauseating is your repeated insults here on this forum on myself, DVP and others who have a different view. This of course is breaking the Forum rules. But don't worry, you continue to get away with these "Bozo" remarks and apparently the Moderators will do nothing to enforce it. 

So, keep insulting others, you own this forum, rules do not apply to you Mr. DiEugenio.

[James DiEugenio]

From Vol. 3, p. 343:

Ball: Gunshots?  Where were you when you heard gunshots?

Davis: In bed.

Dulles: Did you says gunshot or gunshots?

Davis: Shots.

Dulles: Plural? How many did you hear?

Davis: Just two, they were pretty close together.

In reality, if anything, this backs up Jack Myers.  

Edited November 16, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

In his non-review review, Myers trots out some of the same dubious arguments about the Tippit shooting that he's been peddling for years, arguments that he knows have been answered many times over by serious researchers. For example, Myers trots out his fiction that "Oswald" supposedly spun around and reversed direction when he saw Tippit's car. Myers knows that the clear weight of the eyewitness evidence indicates that the man Tippit stopped had not spun around. 

But Myers won't admit this because then he'd have to explain why the lackluster Tippit would have stopped the man, supposedly Oswald, based on the vague description given over the police radio. The description broadcast by the police said the suspect was “about 30, 5’10”, 165 pounds.” Well, Oswald was 24, 5’9”, and weighed 131 pounds. Thus, Oswald was six years younger, 1 inch shorter, and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect described in the police broadcast

By the way, even Vincent Bugliosi admitted that not a single eyewitness actually described the sudden changing of direction that Myers assumes occurred: 

          . . . it seems unlikely to me that Oswald would have changed directions (something, it should be added, that no witness saw). (Reclaiming History, endnote for 78, "why the cop stopped him")

Bugliosi also admitted that if the assailant was Oswald, such a noticeable reversal of direction after allegedly spotting Tippit "would be inconsistent with Oswald's conduct that day" (Ibid.).

Here's the core problem: ALL of the original police/FBI/SS reports on the Tippit shooting said the assailant was walking west, toward Tippit, when he stopped a foot or two in front of the front end of Tippit's car. But Myers must have "Oswald" suddenly spin around and walk away from Tippit before the encounter in order to explain why Tippit stopped him, since Oswald did not match the description of the suspect that was broadcast over the police radio (he was six years younger and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect). 

This is not to mention the fact that Tippit was far out of his assigned area, that there is no apparent innocent explanation for why Tippit was in Oswald's neighborhood, and that there is no apparent innocent explanation for Tippit's strange behavior in the 30 minutes before his death (speeding away from a gas station and frantically using a phone in a business).

As for the latent palmprint, a few questions:

1. Lt. Day said he could still see the print on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints. So, what happened to the print that Day said remained visible on the rifle after lifting? And why did Latona find no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints?

2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

👌

Nice one Mike.  I was waiting for you to chime in on the whole LHO changed direction Myerism, since you did a very nice job rubbing it out on your site.

 

[Bill Brown]

20 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I know the part about the rearview mirror. What I mean is that when he is talking about the 10-15 feet, he is no longer talking about when he was looking in the rearview mirror but is talking about when he had first drove past Oswald while he was talking to Tippit. Below is the video for reference. There is even a questionable break in the audio on the video which might suggest the editors are splicing together two different sections of the video for editing purposes. 

“I put my car in gear and drove forward and watched him through the rear-view mirror.”

---Break In Sound On Tape---

“And I saw him very clearly. I realized there was one thing that made him stand out and that was his mouth that curled up. I couldn’t mistake that. Kind of a smile. And I was within 10-15 feet of that individual and it was lee Harvey Oswald.”

Whether there is an edit there or not at that point in the video, Tatums account can be read as him simply talking about when he had been passing Oswald and Tippit talking when he would indeed have been 10-15 feet from Oswald.

 

Gerry, you're absolutely correct and it's amazing that this had to be pointed out.

 

Strike one on the Jack Myers article.

 

[Bill Brown]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As Jack Myers then states: this is a deception of the first magnitude.  Since criminal studies have shown that, after 25 feet the ability to make out a face seriously diminishes. At about 150 feet it is just about zero.  So how could Tatum make out a face in his rearview mirror from about a 100 feet, or more, away? And, recall, Tatum was moving slightly forward at the time. How could he make out the corners of the perpetrator's mouth?

 

I find this laughable.

 

It's like DiEugenio (along with Jack Myers) is unaware that Tatum's account has him passing the patrol car at a point in time when Oswald and Tippit were talking through the window, i.e. Tatum places himself within fifteen feet of Oswald.

 

I corrected Jack Myers on this about a year and a half ago but apparently it fell on deaf ears.

 

[Bill Brown]

From the Jack Myers article, linked by DiEugenio...

 

Approximately 1:04 p.m.

Several blocks east of Top 10 and the Texas Theater, an unknown young white male about 5’8” to 5’10” and 165 pounds wearing a white shirt and light tan Eisenhower jacket begins to quickly walk west on East 10^th Street. The man is in such a hurry that he catches the attention of those inside of Clark’s Barber Shop at 620 E. 10^th as he breezes by that establishment’s storefront window. A pedestrian, Mr. William Lawrence Smith, passes the same man as Smith walks east to lunch at the Town & Country Café just a few doors west of the barber shop. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 841)

 

The Clark's Barber Shop sighting, according to those inside, took place that morning; NOT after 1 pm.

 

Strike two on the Jack Myers article.

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

More from the Jack Myers article, linked by DiEugenio...

 

Approximately 1:05:30

Officer Tippit, now sitting once again in his patrol car outside of the Top 10 Records store, suddenly hears his police radio crackle to life. There has been a reported fight and possible stabbing at the corner of 10^th & Marsalis, several blocks east of where his patrol car now sits near the corner of West Jefferson Blvd. and Bishop Avenue. A man has supposedly been stabbed and thrown into the back of a blue car which drove away from the scene. Tippit puts Car #10 into gear and moves out in a big hurry.

 

When asked, Jack Myers could not lead me to the portion of the police tapes where Tippit could have heard of any stabbing.

 

Strike three.

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Bill Brown

[James DiEugenio]

I don't read Bill Brown.

But for the record, he is actually  working directly with Myers. Which is all you need to know.

Mr. Single Bullet Fact.🤧

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Mike Kiely said:

The description almost matches Baker's affidavit, given later in the afternoon, in his case "approximately 30 years old, 5' 9", 165 pounds". Where did the radio broadcast get their information from? Was it Brennan? Otherwise, a case of multiple investigators singing from the same conveniently available hymn sheet.

 

The broadcast was put out by Herb Sawyer who most likely got the description from Brennan.

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Bill Brown

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, getting back to the whole Mike Griffith and his negation of the Myersesque pirouette by whoever was at the scene.

Mike is right about why Myers needs that.

Because without it you are left with a quandary.  Why did TIppit stop the guy, or did he actually stop him?  Did he know the guy?

As Mike said above, those questions lead to the inevitable: Why was Tippit so far out of his area?

Henry Hurt and Joe McBride really ask the pertinent questions about the 12:45 order to go into central Oak Cliff.  Nelson did not obey the order, and Tippit was pretty much there already. And neither man directly acknowledged the order. From the evidence we have, Nelson did not obey the order. His next communication is from Dealey Plaza.

Incredibly, the WC never questioned Nelson. Neither did the HSCA.  This is bizarre, if for no other reason than if Nelson had been in Oak Cliff he might have prevented the shooting. When Hurt met with Nelson, he said he had been waiting a long time to tell his story.  But he wanted money for it.  Hurt declined. (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 161-62)

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

On 11/14/2022 at 7:50 PM, David Von Pein said:

For some unknown reason, Mr. DiEugenio didn't even see fit to include a link to Dale Myers' July 24, 2022, article that DiEugenio is heavily bashing at his K&K website. Therefore, I'll post a link to Myers' 7/24/22 article/review here:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/07/Reviewing Oliver Stone's Docu.

Also See ---  THIS LINK to Dale Myers' November 16, 2022, blog post in which Dale handily and convincingly puts DiEugenio in his proper place.

Extra Bonus:

Edited November 16, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

36 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Also See ---  THIS LINK to Dale Myers' November 16, 2022, blog post in which Dale handily and convincingly puts DiEugenio in his proper place.

Extra Bonus:

How can you seriously post this stuff given that we now know, including from ARRB-released materials, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point, and therefore they speculated that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound? How? Are you aware of this evidence? If so, how do you explain it, if you say you still believe in the single-bullet theory? The old fallback line of "they were simply mistaken" won't work this time (it has rarely been credible in most other cases as well).

Edited November 17, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[David Von Pein]

13 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

How can you seriously post this stuff given that we now know, including from ARRB-released materials, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point? How?

Because what you're saying is just flat-out NOT TRUE. If it was true, we wouldn't find this passage in the autopsy report (written by those very same autopsy doctors):

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of the Official Autopsy Report; Warren Report, p.543

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Mike.

 

BTW, if you want to see the longest, most detailed critique of Myers' book on the Tippit case, please read the following by Gokay Yusuf.  Its long and you have to devote some time to it, but boy is it good. Part 2 is connected to part one.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-part-1