3 x 5 Index Card that is item # 14 On the List

[John Iacoletti]

I don't give flip how you interpret Latona's testimony....The bottom line IS:   ...By SaPersonay 11 / 23 / 63 , Nobody had found any prints on the rifle that would have allowed Henry Wade ,The Dallas DA,  to tell reporters that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald's prints had been found on the gun.

I agree.  And none of this demonstrates that your fabrication about the palmprint being given to the FBI on 11/22 is actually true.  I don't give a flip about the stories you make up in your head.

[Walt Cakebread]

I agree.  And none of this demonstrates that your fabrication about the palmprint being given to the FBI on 11/22 is actually true.  I don't give a flip about the stories you make up in your head.

So we agree that Henry Wade was a damned liar, and he framed Lee Oswald, who told the whole wide world that he was being framed when  he said " I'm just a Patsy"

Henry Wade was not a "lone nut" and acting on his own when he told reporters that they had found Ossssswald's  prints on the gun... But he was a key conspirator.

[Jack Trojan]

Jack, since this print allegedly was lifted from a 5/8 " diameter round barrel ( with a half circumference of 1 inch ) don't you think the edges of the print should fade.    IOW the palm of a man's hand would be in solid contact with the center of the round surface but the top and bottom edges would have less contact with the round surface and gradually fade away.

Walt, to overlay a print lifted from a cylinder vs a flat surface requires correcting for the 3D deformation of the print image. You need to know the diameter and alignment of the cylinder to apply the digital filter that rectifies the deformation. The correction looks like this:

We know that the tape in this lift was one inch wide.....so that tape would wrap half way around the barrel .   IMO we should see a good print in the center and less and less of the print at the top and bottom.  This print looks like it was lifted from a flat surface....   Question:   Would it be possible to place the print on the photo of the 3 X 5 card photographically ?     Like a double exposure....First take a photo of a print and then without advancing the film take a photo of the surface on which you want the print to appear?    There are probably other ways that the print could be made to appear on a surface...but I think you'll get the idea.

I won't touch this one unless I get a microscopic scan of the palm print on the 3"x5" card. We need enough resolution to identify dermal patterns and scars, etc. that match the inked hand print. Otherwise, I will be spinning my wheels and the only thing I could do would be to determine the probable location of the print on Oswald, the correct scale and orientation of Oswald's hand as he gripped the barrel and correct for the distortion created by lifting the print from a cylinder and taping it to a flat surface. But all that isn't good enough unless the resolution is sufficient to match up specific points on the print like a trained dermatoglyphician does.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, to overlay a print lifted from a cylinder vs a flat surface requires correcting for the 3D deformation of the print image. You need to know the diameter and alignment of the cylinder to apply the digital filter that rectifies the deformation. The correction looks like this:



I won't touch this one unless I get a microscopic scan of the palm print on the 3"x5" card. We need enough resolution to identify dermal patterns and scars, etc. that match the inked hand print. Otherwise, I will be spinning my wheels and the only thing I could do would be to determine the probable location of the print on Oswald, the correct scale and orientation of Oswald's hand as he gripped the barrel and correct for the distortion created by lifting the print from a cylinder and taping it to a flat surface. But all that isn't good enough unless the resolution is sufficient to match up specific points on the print like a trained dermatoglyphician does.

Jack, I think that you're making this waaaaay more complicated than necessary ....  The idea is very elementary....  A man's print on a small ( 5/8 inch) round tube would make good contact only at the center of the tube's surface.   The print left by the contact would become distorted and less distinct at the outer edges of the print.  The print that you posted is not distorted nor is it indistinct at the outer edges....  The print looks like it came from a flat surface...

[Jack Trojan]

Jack, I think that you're making this waaaaay more complicated than necessary ....  The idea is very elementary....  A man's print on a small ( 5/8 inch) round tube would make good contact only at the center of the tube's surface.   The print left by the contact would become distorted and less distinct at the outer edges of the print.  The print that you posted is not distorted nor is it indistinct at the outer edges....  The print looks like it came from a flat surface...

Nope. You don't understand how a print is projected onto a curved surface and how complicated photogrammetry is. Distortion does not mean "out of focus". Distortion is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, it's the projection of an image from a curved to a flat surface. That is what I showed you. The distortion at the outer edges are irrelevant. They fade away at the point they lose contact with the rifle, as expected.

[Walt Cakebread]

Nope. You don't understand how a print is projected onto a curved surface and how complicated photogrammetry is. Distortion does not mean "out of focus". Distortion is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, it's the projection of an image from a curved to a flat surface. That is what I showed you. The distortion at the outer edges are irrelevant. They are nearest to the flat surface so their distortion is minimal.

I don't think you are understanding me.... I'm merely saying that a man's palm would make good contact at the highest point of a curved surface...and there would be les contact the further you go away from that high point .....ans consequently the print left by the contact would be good at the canter but it would fade away at the outside of the rounded surface.   This is elementary....Put a glass in the freezer and when it is cold enough to form frost on the outside...place your hand on the side of the tumbler.    Your hand will make good contact at the highest point on the glass but it will not come in contact with a point the is 90 degrees from that high point.

[Jack Trojan]

I don't think you are understanding me.... I'm merely saying that a man's palm would make good contact at the highest point of a curved surface...and there would be les contact the further you go away from that high point .....ans consequently the print left by the contact would be good at the canter but it would fade away at the outside of the rounded surface.   This is elementary....Put a glass in the freezer and when it is cold enough to form frost on the outside...place your hand on the side of the tumbler.    Your hand will make good contact at the highest point on the glass but it will not come in contact with a point the is 90 degrees from that high point.

Walt, I am understanding you fine. The print does fade away at the edges as you describe where it loses contact with the rifle. The 1" tape shows that, otherwise, we would see more dermal ridges at the tape's edges, but we don't. This is consistent with the print being lifted from the rifle barrel. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print, which was taken on a flat surface. Trust me, you can't make any conclusions based on these images. Not unless you actually have the gumption to try and match them up. Anything less than that is a waste of time.

Here is something YOU can uniquely do. You own a MC, right? If so, you can duplicate most of these experiments and you can answer most of your questions to support your claims. You are in the driver's seat here. Wipe down your MC, disassemble it, put it in a bag, take it out and reassemble it, take a few shots, ditch it, then put on some gloves (like the DPD should have done) and test it for prints. I'll bet you get more than 0.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, I am understanding you fine. The print does fade away at the edges as you describe where it loses contact with the rifle. The 1" tape shows that, otherwise, we would see more dermal ridges at the tape's edges, but we don't. This is consistent with the print being lifted from the rifle barrel. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print, which was taken on a flat surface. Trust me, you can't make any conclusions based on these images. Not unless you actually have the gumption to try and match them up. Anything less than that is a waste of time.

Here is something YOU can uniquely do. You own a MC, right? If so, you can duplicate most of these experiments and you can answer most of your questions to support your claims. You are in the driver's seat here. Wipe down your MC, disassemble it, put it in a bag, take it out and reassemble it, take a few shots, ditch it, then put on some gloves (like the DPD should have done) and test it for prints. I'll bet you get more than 0.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print,

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....The print was on a flat surface ....They took a photo of it and then without advancing the film they took a photo of the 3X5 white card  creating a double exposure.....and presto the print was on the card....   We have never seen the actual card....all we've been shown is photos of the card.