Why should we care about what the Houston Post "acknowledged"? What makes them experts on photo analysis?
You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.
If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.
It doesn't alter the fact that the Backyard photos were confirmed to be authentic by the 21 members of the HSCA photographic analysis panel.
So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.
It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.
Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.?
As I said, I'll leave the Backyard photo issue for John Mytton to deal with. Photo analysis is definitely not my forte. Neither is it yours. I'm terrible at it.
Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.
Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htmThere aren't any holes in the palmprint's documented discovery or transmission.
Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.
Where is that memo? Let's see it. Notice that the memo was dated July 1978. That was after Scalice had examined the palm print. Also, perhaps more importantly, notice that the article refers to fingerprints. Multiple fingerprints, not a single latent palm print.
I did miss that part. 
I must have been having a rough day myself. 
Because I also missed this part:
9. Lift from the rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.
So, there you have it.
I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
Not only did the HSCA get the original palm print lift, they were able to have it positively matched to Oswald's rifle as well. Which was just a confirmation of what Latona et al had done 14 years prior. John Mytton has allowed us to see it for ourselves.
Scalice had the actual palm print itself to determine if it was Oswald's or not but for his own purposes he chose to use enlarged negatives of the print to make the identification.
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.
Saying that it was debunked is not the same as showing that it was debunked. Nothing in that excerpt of yours challenges what I said. By the time that Day was told to pack everything up he just had not got around to photographing the print and he felt rushed to get all of the items properly prepared for pick up.There's no way to debunk it. All you have is speculation.
I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.
When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
Why are you focusing on minor inconsistencies in Day's foggy four month old recollection instead of dealing with the elephant in the room? That elephant being the lift itself and it having been positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Day's recollections on some minor details were faulty. No question about it. However, none of it negates the fact that he lifted the palm print off of the barrel of the rifle. Yes, the print had been under the wooden stock and would not have been placed there by normal handling of the rifle. However, Oswald had disassembled the rifle before bringing it to work. Probably the night before.
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
Latona never got the print until the 29th. However, the FBI got it on the 26th. And no, I'm not confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint taken from the rifle.
CE 738 does not include all of the evidence that Drain took possession of that day. Those are the items that he picked up at 2 PM. The piece of cardboard doesn't appear to be in that photo. According to Day, it was picked up by Drain at 11:45 that night. The lift of the partial palm print and the cardboard boxes would have been picked up at the time as well.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt,
Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
