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.
I won't admit to something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true. Claiming that something was fabricated or altered is not the same thing as proving that it was.
Right, so what was going on with Liebeler saying it was just Latona?
I already addressed that. Can't you read? Latona was the primary examiner who made the match. 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. It's similar to the shell casings in the Tippit shooting being matched to Oswald's revolver. We say that Cortlandt Cunningham made the match even though others did as well. Liebeler was only doing what we all do.
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.
We have more than just Hoover's examiners. We have Vincent Scalice confirming it as well. The palm print got on the barrel by Oswald having his hand on it.
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.
For goodness sakes Michael, would you just stop and think about what you are posting before actually posting it? Latona testified in April of 1964. He never tried to match the lift with the barrel until September of 1964. When he examined the palm print in Nov of 63 , he wasn't looking for any characteristics on the lift other than those of the palm print itself. Liebeler was not told that Frazier had made the match. He was told that Latona had made the match. Perhaps by Latona himself.
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.
You are still confused and even moreso than you were before. And your confusion is giving me a headache. Yes, I am the one who said that when Scalice referred to five matching points, those points must have included barrel irregularities. That's what I've been saying all along. So, why are you refering to "the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm" when the issue we have been discussing in the barrel/lift match, not the palm print identification? Scalice matched five points. But you have it stuck in your head that what he was doing was the same thing as identifying a palm print. As you put it "he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification." Five points may be well below the minimum needed for credibly identifying a fingerprint or a palm print but it was sufficient enough for Scalice to positively match the lift with the barrel. It's doubtful that Latona found many more than five. Kirk found six.
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?
The rifle was 23 years old. My guess would be that the irregularities were pits of corrosion. The stock would not protect the barrel from corrision.
I've already previously addressed your other questions.
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?
No, I haven't forgot that. You employ a double standard. You demand to see sworn testimony or to be shown that something was included in the HSCA Volumes when confronted with facts that you find inconvenient. Yet, you have no trouble whatsoever holding up a memo that isn't sworn testimony, or found in the HSCA Volumes, as being gospel. Here's the thing, I don't know if Scalice had the actual lift or not. But what I do know is that he had made use of enlarged negatives of photos of the lift. While using secondhand photos of prints can be problematic when it comes to making positive identification, the use of photos taken by identification experts themselves is/was common. Scalise was obviously comfortable enough with the quality of the negatives to make his determinations. Latona himself used enlarged photographs to aid in his identification of prints. Latona had photos of the prints prepared under his personal direction. The negatives that Scalise refers to would have been of the photos of the lift prepared for Latona.
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 there it is again. You are confused. You are conflating two separate issues.
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.
What do you suppose the points of identity were, if not irregularities? Give your head a shake.
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.
Actually, I do know that Oswald disassembled the rifle because of where he left his palm print on the barrel.
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.
Michael, the irregularities were pits of corrosion. They were not placed there by Oswald. You are coming across as being somewhat dimwitted. I'm sorry, but you are.
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.
The FBI didn't force the DPD to do anything. The DPD voluntarily handed items of evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 with the agreement that the FBI would return it all within 48 hours. On the 24th, the FBI had no idea that they would be getting it all back two days later.
I already cited a forensic source on the fact that print lifts can be planted on surfaces. Did you miss that?
You did no such thing.
Gosh, really? The point of placing Oswald's palmprint on another rifle would be to then lift that print from the rifle.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
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).
I have Hoover's memo. I have the Warren Commission including the finding in their report. I have Liebeler sworn testimony before the HSCA. I have Vincent Scalice's finding which is found in the HSCA Volumes. And I have a line on Cecil Kirk as having made the match as well. Not to mention John Mytton's graphic which allows us to see the match for ourselves.
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?
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N.Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
Did you know that the money order was never cashed? Any clue about any of this stuff?
Sheesh man! Are you ever out of the loop. You've been at this stuff a lot longer than I have and you are still clueless on a great many things.
I know for a fact the the money order was cashed. You can take that to the bank.
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.htm
Not interested in debating the backyard photos. They are authentic and unaltered.
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.
If the FBI visited the morgue, they did so after they had already handed the rifle back to the DPD.
"As to Lieutenant Day, I've known him a long time, and I think that he's an honest individual." -- Vincent Drain, quoted in "No More Silence", by Larry Sneed, page 260
Day handed the lift over to Drain on November 26, 1963 and Drain signed for it.
