Yes, that's good enough for me.
Yes, of course it is, because you are emotionally committed to believing the lone-gunman theory, so you can't admit that a single piece of evidence was fabricated or altered or misrepresented.
Latona was the chief examiner. Whenever we say that the latent palm print was identified as being Oswald's, it's always that Latona made the match. Even though Mandella also made the match. On the lift card , you can see "a.m. 9-17-64". We can safely assume that the a.m. being Arthur Mandella. That shows that Mandella handled the lift around the same period that the positive match with the barrel was made. About a week later.
Right, so what was going on with Liebeler saying it was just Latona?
Again, we have only the word of Hoover's "lab examiners" about the barrel irregularities appearing in the palmprint lift, never mind that their claim, even if true, does not establish how the palmprint got on the barrel.
Latona wasn't asked about barrel irregularities. He was asked about whether the print was Oswald's or not.
LOL! Right, so he said nothing about such a crucial identification because no one asked him about it! How lame can your excuses be? People who are not emotionally determined to uphold the lone-assassin myth look at this and say, "Well, wait a minute. Surely if Latona had identified irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift, he would have mentioned this in his testimony." Of course he would have. He didn't mention it because he had seen any such evidence.
But, later, when the FBI was pressed by the WC about the glaring holes in Lt. Day's story and the doubts about the palmprint's origin, Hoover, without even mentioning their names, says that two of his lab examiners found barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift. Then, later, Liebeler is told that Frazier was the one who did this, but Frazier clearly did not see any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift the first time he examined it--or else he surely would have mentioned this in his WC testimony.
But, I know: You don't see anything the least bit suspicious about any of this.
Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.
You mean you won't see it. It's there for any rational, honest person to see, but you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, so you "don't see it."
How is it possible that you can be so confused? You still continue to conflate two separate issues. This is the third or fourth time you've done so here. The palm print characteristics and the barrel irregularities are not the same thing. The points of identity matching the lift to the barrel would not have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. Those are palm print characteristics. None of those were left on the barrel. Day had lifted them entirely so that no trace of them remained. While five matching points of identity is below the minimum needed for a credible identification of a fingerprint or palm print, it obvious was enough for Scalice to make his positive match of the lift to the barrel.
HUH? YOU are the one who said that when Scalice referred to five matching points, those points must have included barrel irregularities. You said that, not I. Do I need to quote you back to yourself? I said that the barrel irregularities were *not* the characteristics that Scalice would have identified as points of identity in the palmprint. I then said that those characteristics would have been "the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm." I said the exact opposite of what you say I said, and you are the one who said that the matching points that Scalice identified must have included the barrel irregularities.
Please stop asking me stupid questions.
IOW, stop asking you questions that you can't plausibly, credibly answer. Your list of "stupid question" includes such logical, fact-based questions as
What irregularities could there have been on a part of the barrel that was protected by the stock?
Why didn't Day take a single photograph of the alleged palmprint but took several photos of the partial trigger-guard prints?
How did all the impression-lifting dust, which is designed to adhere to its surface, disappear from the barrel between Dallas and DC?
Why did Day repeatedly insist that the palmprint was still visible after he lifted it, when the FBI found no trace of the print, nor even of any evidence that the barrel had been dusted?
Why did Day pass up every single opportunity to properly document the palmprint?
Scalice's identification was included in the the HSCA Volumes and you dismiss that. Why would Kirk's identification being included be any different? Five points of identification was sufficient for Scalice to make his match. Six points of identification is over and above.
Did you forget about the HSCA memo that says the FBI told the HSCA that they could not find the original lift for the palmprint? Did you forget about that?
If you will check any forensic textbook on print identification, you will find that the standard number of minimum matches for a credible identification is 10-12, not 5 or 6.
And I again point out that Scalice said nothing about seeing any irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift that he allegedly examined. Not one word. Nor did Kirk. Yet, both men surely knew that this was a crucial issue regarding the palmprint's origin and authenticity.
And I ask again, why was not the palmprint lift included in the HSCA's list of exhibits?
Obviously, Oswald had disassembled the rifle sometime before his disassembling of it on Nov 21-Nov 22. Why is this stuff so hard for you?
First of all, you don't know that Oswald ever disassembled that rifle. Every piece of "evidence" you have connecting him to the rifle is riddled with problems and contradictions. The story of how he supposedly got the rifle into the building in the first place is problematic.
But let's think about your scenario: Oswald disassembles the rifle so he can carry it into the building and then reassembles it in the building, and in the process somehow creates "irregularities" on the barrel that, my oh my, just happen to be where Lt. Day later claims he found Oswald's palmprint, a palmprint that Day remarkably failed to photograph even once, even though he took several photos of the trigger-guard prints. And Oswald doesn't just create one irregularity but multiple irregularities, all in the process of one episode of disassembly and assembly.
I already addressed that. The DPD wanted it all back because they were primarily responsible for the investigations of the crimes. The FBI sent it back because they had agreed to do so. They didn't know that they would be getting it back two days later.
Oh, so they had no idea they would get the rifle back in two days! The FBI did not give a hoot about what the DPD wanted. The FBI forced the DPD to hand over all the evidence within days after the shooting, beginning on the night of the assassination, which the DPD greatly resented.
LOL...What?? How would that be done exactly and has it ever been successfully done?
I already cited a forensic source on the fact that print lifts can be planted on surfaces. Did you miss that?
They? Who were They? And what would be the point of placing Oswald's hand on a different rifle?
Gosh, really? The point of placing Oswald's palmprint on another rifle would be to then lift that print from the rifle.
The lift with Oswald's palm print wasn't matched to a different rifle. It was matched to the barrel of Oswald's rifle.
You don't know that at all. You have only Hoover's unsworn claim that it was, a claim that was not verified by Scalice or Kirk, a claim that Latona never even mentioned in his extensive testimony. Scalice and Kirk were aware of the doubts about the palmprint--they knew full well that critics had long asserted that it was planted--yet they said nothing about seeing any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift (or, more likely, in the photos they examined of the lift).
The one that he had purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods though mail order.
I take it you are not aware of any of the problems with the claim that Oswald bought the rifle through Klein's through the mail with a money order? Did you know that Oswald was at work when he supposedly bought the money order, and that the money order was purchased at a location that was far from the TSBD? Did you know that the money order was never cashed? Any clue about any of this stuff?
The same rifle that he had himself photographed holding.
Yeah, uh-huh. Yet we both know that you have no explanation for the impossibly small differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos. You have no rational innocent explanation for the DPD prints revealed in 1992, one of which shows a silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be, and another of which shows a stand-in assuming a pose that no one knew existed until 1976. And this is not to mention the myriad of suspicious holes in the stories of the alleged discovery of the photos and the camera.
Where'd those clothes go? Oswald was a miser and was known to keep things forever. Whey weren't the clothes of the backyard figure found in his belongings? Why does the figure's ring disappear in one of the photos?
And are you guys ever going to do a reenactment that duplicates the variant nose shadow? HCA PEP member McCamy admitted in his testimony that in order to allegedly duplicate the variant nose shadow, not only was the model's head tilted and rotated at the same time to precise points, which made it so that
the subject was no longer looking at the camera, but the camera itself was then shifted just to reacquire a frontal view of the face. Even Congressman Fithian noted that "the probability would be that those three things . . . would not come together at the same place, at the same time." It was at this point that McCamy conceded that "a number of assumptions" would be necessary to "interpret the Oswald photograph" from the demonstration that was supposed to duplicate the variant shadows. I cover this in detail in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htmI'd have to listen to those recordings myself before offering my opinion on them. Where can they be listened to? For now, I'll continue to assume that Larry Sneed himself is an honest individual. Hurt is a bit of a loon. I still get a kick out of how he described the three shots that Oswald got off in Dealey Plaza.
Oh, wow. So now Henry Hurt "is a bit of a loon," huh? No, but such a comment paints you as a clown. FYI, Henry Hurt was a widely respected scholar and author, known as a straight shooter and a careful researcher. He was a Rockefeller Foundation fellow and an editor for
Reader's Digest for many years. One review of his best-selling book
Reasonable Doubt said the book established Hurt "as a world-class investigative reporter." In its review of Hurt's book, the
New York Times said Hurt "writes convincingly." Hurt's other books also received wide praise. Hurt was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
This has nothing to do with Sneed. It is about Drain. I'll take what he said in 1983 and 1983. Also, what he said in 2002, as I noted, does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle, nor does Drain's 2002 statement address his previous comments about the FBI's strange visit to the morgue to take Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints and about the palmprint's origin.
