CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[John Mytton]

the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766

No, the 5 marks match at best only proves that Day's index card touched the rifle at some point.

Since I have no idea what you are babbling about, could you please explain how your theory works?

Here is a high quality photo of Day's index card showing Oswald's print while simultaneously displaying the 5 random marks found on Oswald's rifle.



JohnM

[Charles Collins]

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.

He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true.

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.

BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.

The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Yes, it is what Day said. IIRC I already provided you what he said in his 2006 oral history interview. He said this similar statement in his 1996 oral history interview: "About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdy…don‟t do anything else to the gun." Your interpretation of the partial sentence from the WC testimony is only your wishful thinking. And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further. If you choose not to believe what Day says that is your choice. I will choose to believe what Carl Day says. It makes no sense for me to continue to argue about the same thing over and over again with you. Lets just let an "impartial jury" decide who they choose to believe.

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

No, I told you a long time ago that I am not interested in your opinions.

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Just another one of your nonsensical opinions.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

It turns out Day's assessment was correct. They were confident that he wouldn't tell them he thought it was Oswald's palmprint if he wasn't sure. And they had plenty of other evidence, it wasn't just the palmprint.

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Yes, it is what Day said. IIRC I already provided you what he said in his 2006 oral history interview. He said this similar statement in his 1996 oral history interview: "About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdy…don‟t do anything else to the gun." Your interpretation of the partial sentence from the WC testimony is only your wishful thinking. And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further. If you choose not to believe what Day says that is your choice. I will choose to believe what Carl Day says. It makes no sense for me to continue to argue about the same thing over and over again with you. Lets just let an "impartial jury" decide who they choose to believe.

And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.

This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

No, I told you a long time ago that I am not interested in your opinions.

Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Just another one of your nonsensical opinions.

Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

It turns out Day's assessment was correct. They were confident that he wouldn't tell them he thought it was Oswald's palmprint if he wasn't sure. And they had plenty of other evidence, it wasn't just the palmprint.

Your opinion that you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. In fact, you now saying they had plenty of other evidence is a clear indication of you backpeddling, because you previously said that the palmprint was a big part of the reasons they decided to charge Oswald.

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

Obviously, nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't have told them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. 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 it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure…..

I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.

[Walt Cakebread]

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Anybody who listens to the Wade press conference of 11/24/63 will note that Wade only talks about the palmprint found on a box at the TSBD.

Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him.

BS all he would have to say is that he was given erroneous information. It was only a press conference, for crying out loud.

Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.

He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true, and none of them came back "to bite him"

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.

BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.

The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days.

There's ample evidence that reveals Day DID NOT keep what what he IMAGINED to be a palm print in his desk for four days.....Day IN FACT turned that so called "palm print" over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63 along with all of the other evidence that the DPD had gathered.   

This isn't rocket science..... Just open your eyes and LOOK......The so call "palm print is item # 14 ( 14th item from the top of the list) on the evidence inventory list that was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence.....

[Charles Collins]

And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.

This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left

Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.

Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. 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 it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure…..

I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.

This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

I have provided Day's words. They conflict with your assumption that the WC testimony indicates he was told to stop processing everything. It does not say that. Day's words in his oral history interviews clarifies that he was told to stop processing the rifle on 11/22/63. In the oral history interview he doesn't say anything about not getting back to checking the palmprint until he is talking about coming back to work and the rifle had already been returned. (And I think his choice of the words (that I underlined) is another indication that he had already started checking the palmprint and was interrupted before he could finish.) It appears to me that he did his brief examination of the palmprint after he lifted it and before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. Fritz, Bill Alexander, Jim Allen, and Forrest Sorrels leave city hall to discuss the evidence and eat at Majestic Steak House around 9:00 PM. Fritz said he wanted to wait until they developed the firearm and fingerprint evidence before they file the charges in the assassination. They decide to wait an hour or so. The assassination charges are filed against Oswald at 11:26 PM. The rifle is released to the FBI about 11:45 PM. References for what was said at the Majestic Steak House are: Bonner, Investigation of a Homicide, pp.152–154; Telephone interview of William Alexander by Vincent Bugliosi on December 12, 2000.


Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. 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 it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

The FBI fingerprint experts and independent experts have all confirmed Day's assessment was correct. Day is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. And again, he is discussing the fingerprints, not the palmprint. So it isn't even relevant. The last line is relevant. That is what a tentative match is. Although I doubt that Day would use that term because it has the potential to cause misunderstandings, of which you are apparently a perfect example.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure.

Yes! However,this is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. With a tentative match he would likely say it appeared to belong to a certain person.

You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure….

I don't believe that I said Day told them he had a "tentative match." I believe I said he would have been careful not to use that particular term. It was Wade's quoted words that included that term. I believe they had enough confidence in Day's brief expert assessment (although it still needed further work to completely document it and double check for errors before he would declare it a positive match) along with the other evidence to charge Oswald with the assassination.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

It is a polite (cryptic) way of saying that we are going in circles and arguing the same things over again and I think it is time to let this rest. Let whoever might be reading this (the jury, the impartial part is my wishful thinking, but you never know some newbie might actually be impartial) make up their own minds. I don't believe that you and I are never going to agree on anything whatsoever.

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said

I have tried to keep it verbatim as much as possible. I do add my opinions but I don't believe that they are mixed in with the quotes. It should be apparent where I have added my opinion, usually at the end. As far as the oral history quotes I have changed the perspective (ie: I to he) or some other insignificant aspect because of the copyright agreement. Again, get yourself a copy if you don't believe me.

[Jim Brunsman]

Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...

[John Mytton]

Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...

...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant?

If you had some evidence to contradict the official story then we could consider your evidence but otherwise it's just more self serving conjecture.

JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

geniuses