https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlVxs9q3sK0&t=5741s



At the very beginning Vince accuses wayward researchers of damaging good research with bogus photo analysis claims...What Vince is referring to there is the bogus Prayer Man claim that was promoted by research sweetheart Bart Kamp - only Vince doesn't say it directly because of his loyalty to certain personalities in the research community...Because of Vince's fealty to those bogus researchers he credits them as being "well-meaning"...Trust me...The Greg Parker Prayer Man trolls are not well-meaning...They are an organized disinformation group that Vince misses the intentional malice of...

Vince gave my important discovery of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he was going to be in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination a full page of mention in his book...So while Vince criticizes Paul Landis for omitting his claim that the shot came from the front in Landis's book, Vince does the same thing to me with Robertson by not mentioning Prayer Man directly...I had it out with Robertson because he gave supportive hosting to notorious trolls Bart Kamp and Greg Parker and their bogus theories on his podcast...When I protested to Robertson that he was enabling wrong evidence he responded "Nobody gives a f***" and pal-ed up with the Parker trolls...So although Vinny might be motivated by my refutation of Prayer Man, at the same time he carefully keeps the black shadow of censorship enforced against me by not mentioning it directly...Oswald can't be in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room (as Hosty admitted) and be out on the front steps at the same time...

https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uplo...TOWERS.pdf

This essay makes the case that the directed-energy weapon that brought down the World Trade Center towers was the particle accelerator at Brookhaven National Laboratory. It is highly recommended that you watch this 3-minute video as an introduction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwWk_gz-tQ

The essay is 25 pages with over 40 photographs. It synopsizes Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 book Where Did the Towers Go?  and then extends it into the realm of advances in laser physics discovered by the Strategic Defense Initiative. These advances, coupled with the geo-engineered Hurricane Erin, were used to molecularly dissociate the Twin Towers.

Wecht was the only pathologist of the 9 pathologists chosen to review the Kennedy Assassination forensic evidence by the House Select Committee On Assassinations who held out and said it didn't add up...


I had the privilege to interview Wecht at his Pittsburg office in 2013...


What Wecht represents is the fact one person holding out for the truth is all you need sometimes against a rotten majority of corruption...Something the JFK research community should learn...

   


(Click on photo link)


Sarah Stanton's clearly-seen dress neckline on Prayer Man...


I'm owed an apology on this by dishonest people who know who they are...

Doudna has made a post on the Education Forum trying to insert Greg Parker's lie that the second Oswald seen by Texas Employment Agency employee Laura Kittrell was actually a man named Curtis Craford...Doudna showed up in the JFK research community a few years ago after signing on to Parker's troll farm and the Education Forum...He's yet another assassination internet commenter who drank the ROKC Kool Aid deeply and believed Parker's evidence-hacking disinformation...ROKC member Tony Krome made a new website entitled "Jacks" in order to carry on ROKC after Greg Parker quit...Doudna posted a link to a thread on 'Jacks' trying to imply Kittrell was mistaken and she actually witnessed a man named Craford instead of the second Oswald "Lee"...The idea that Kittrell could not tell the difference between Curtis Craford and Harvey Oswald is an act of insanity that has gotten no resistance on Gordon's Forum...The Forum offers no effort at all to protect site integrity and Peer Review...


To show how poisonous Parker and ROKC is, Doudna enters this deceptive claim without ever mentioning the fact that Kittrell had witnessed the real Lee try to stand in for "Harvey"...Being true to Parker's damaging disinformation purpose, Doudna avoids mentioning Armstrong's claim that Kittrell witnessed both Oswalds...Anyone who examines Kittrell's witnessing will instantly see that Kittrell was trying to say she saw two people who were identical who were trying to pass themselves off as each other...Doudna even takes the side of the government and attacks Kittrell calling her "emotionally disturbed"...


The Education Forum says not a word to Doudna and gives him free access to the Forum as Parker's proxy...Nobody defends Hargrove or Armstrong...DiEugenio is silent because there's no clicks in it...


In order to have a credible research community you have to have "Peer Review"...Peer Review means you can't stay silent when such a dishonest, undermining move is made...There has to be some attempt to maintain research credibility when such a pathetic move is attempted...If Knight, Gordon, and Larsen allow this without comment then they are simply not credible and have failed the basic requirement for Peer Review, as have the members...The silence of the moderators and members is directly responsible for Greg Parker's damage... 


Tony Krome banned me from 'Jacks' when I challenged the membership to answer the recent evidence of a woman's dress neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell...That is exactly what UK James Gordon did when I challenged the Education Forum to answer for the woman's face clearly seen on Prayer Man in Davidson's Enhancement of Wiegman...

The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.


LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ.

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints.

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.


HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT USING THE WRONG FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a  white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.


THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During  the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?

11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before.

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.


https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...-rifle.mp4


This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.


LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ?

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22.

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )


LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ).

He admitted  that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.


WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This is a clip from a video on Vince Palamara's Youtube page:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...t-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.


THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...groody.mp4

Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).
Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

The post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was explained in testimony by the FBI's Latona.
Described as the "second submission" of fingerprints, he told the Commission that the post-mortem fingerprinting was done "in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald had been killed." ( 4 H 7 )

An examination of this card, ( CE 630 ) although marked "deceased", indicates that Oswald "refused to sign" the card.
But he didn't refuse to sign it, he was dead.

It's imporatnt to note that, according to the description of exhibit 630 listed by the Commission, this series of fingerprints were taken by the Dallas Police.
Whatever excuse was used to gain access to the corpse, such access also gave authorities the opportunity to place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle.

Can the human body leave fingerprints on an object after the subject is dead ?

A study described in a 2017 USA Today article, usable biometric data has been obtained from corpses dead for up to four days in warm weather and as long as 50 days in wintertime.
Biometric data can include fingerprints, facial scans, voice recognition, iris scans, palm prints, and hand geometry.

Under those circumstances, the possibility of a planted palmprint certainly exists.

THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...-11.26.png

Although the fingerprint card with the palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...mprint.jpg

The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )


THE COMMISSION WRAPS IT UP IN A NICE LITTLE PACKAGE....OR NOT

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...rprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off of the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed"  means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary.

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.

CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.

In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...prints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint.

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was "a rather heated subject matter" for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report.

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.

A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd.

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, it was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse".  It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.

Any connection to Israel has been a banned subject her at DPF.  I can't speak to this with any authority.  Here is an interview with Jefferson Morley, David Talbot and Aaron Good.  This brings to mind a long ago banned member (can't remember his name) who was advocating for Michael Piper's book, Final Judgment.  

The discussion:

https://www.fourdiedtrying.com/post/angl...ount-dcc31

I have a no blocking/banning rule that I practice because I have seen too many dishonest, immoral people victimize innocent persons and their good evidence using that cowardly feature (Education Forum)...The internet has become a hunting ground of mobs because of the blocking/banning feature...The blocking/banning feature is a perk given to the public by IT in order to make them more amenable to predatory marketing and comes at the public's expense...I have seen too many dishonest people (James Gordon, Jim DiEugenio) use it to intellectually murder good researchers and their good evidence...Free speech and the truth have taken a real hit because of the blocking/banning feature and the uncredible people who abuse it...JFK research has literally been brought to a halt by it...

I have only blocked one person in my life and that was John Iacoletti...I did it because Iacoletti obviously had no intention of posting in good faith and was only posting in order to nay-say everything I wrote...Iacoletti is a product of the mentally ill website administrator Duncan MacRae who protects and encourages him...You will find that toxic trolls like Iacoletti and Ford only exist because they were protected by wayward moderators in order to cater to the gangs that dominate their websites...Ford is a poisonous product of Greg Parker and the Prayer Man gang...Alan Ford backs the gangs so he is tolerated... 

Alan Ford has now earned the only other block I have ever issued because he is obviously demented and is only posting for disruptive nay-saying purposes...I am now waiting for Jim DiEugenio to do a positive article on Ford and give him and his trolling approval...

I see Magda and Lauren have reversed the previous DPF policy and allow the worst of the Parker/MacRae-type trolls on this forum...This of course is no problem as long as it is aimed at the right people...

I have a new essay ready, Mistaken Identity, at  my website at https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uplo...ENTITY.pdf

Basically, it examines and enlarges upon Robert Doran's 2016 book of the same name, which includes a look at the biological basis for the Lee Harvey Oswald doppelgangers. Even though this essay comprises 45 pages, there are 30 photographs, 22 documents (9 full-page, plus 6 mostly-full) and 20 enlargements, so you should be able to get through a first reading in a couple of hours. This research is well worth your consideration.

The first section, Lee Harvey Oswald's Family Tree, sketches out his immediate ancestors, supported by US Census records. Doran's Mormon faith gave him a flair for genealogy, and he may have grabbed the brass ring as far as identifying the true origin of the Oswald doppelganger.

The second section, Two Marguerite Oswalds, is full of photographs from ancestry.com and John Armstrong's research and leaves 0% doubt that two women were posing as his mother.

The third section, Two Lee Harvey Oswalds, sketches the discrepancies discovered by Armstrong in the youths' New York and New Orleans school records.

The fourth section, Two Signatures, examines the different signatures evidenced by two separate individuals (5' 11" hazel eyes vs. 5' 9" blue eyes) on unique-but-amalgamated paths as US Marines.

The fifth section, A Russian Surprise, scrutinizes which doppelganger defected to the Soviet Union, and then looks at the possibility that they switched places while over there.

The sixth section, Prelude to Assassination, is a concluding brief showing who worked at the Texas School Book Depository and who frequented Jack Ruby's Carousel Club.

John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee theory is stronger than ever, but portions of it will need substantial revision. And Robert Doran's work has made a critical companion contribution. His artistic-but-tenacious mind uncovered important evidence that was previously overlooked.

This is an area of research that will yield more fruit for somebody with the time, proper grounding, inclination and dedication. Hopefully this new essay will help spur that effort.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads...rt-V-1.mp4