Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Walt Cakebread]

I forgot. You think Day lied about disassembling the rifle.

I see no impression of the band on the left. You're making it up as you go along. It's like Mormonism. 

No Jerry, I'm not making things up as we go along......I've been posting this same information for decades.   Check back and find out....

If you'll look directly below JCDay's signature (in the upper left corner of the card ) you see that the tape was not in contact with the surface from which the print was lifted.....  I believe it was that metal barrel band that lifted the tape away from the surface.

[Walt Cakebread]

1) That's not an impression and certainly not "That band can be seen at the far left of the lift."

2) It's way outside the area of the band if the tape is 1".

3) The corner on the upper-right is also void of dust.

I don't see why Day would press down hard on the corners. Not where the print was and he needed a corner to lift the tape back up.

But nice try.

I don't see why Day would press down hard on the corners. Not where the print was and he needed a corner to lift the tape back up.

Day would lightly have pressed the tape over the area where he believed there was a print.....He wouldn't have "pressed down hard" and risk distorting the print.... So basically the tape was "floating" and the barrel band would have prevented  the tape from making solid contact  with the surface.

Have you now decided that the tape was 1 inch wide?

[Charles Collins]

Here's a first attempt at trying to compare Oswald's palmprint to the one on Day's lift.

(if not to scale on your monitor, check on PC,
Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout;
I had mine on 125%)

Nice work there Jerry, thanks! If I am looking at this correctly, the 2” tape appears to be the closest in relative scale. If that is true, what does that say about the size of the card?

Note, I have to say that it was more than a little bit eerie to put my hand up to the screen to compare the size of my hand to the size of the LHO print. It brought home the fact that he was human better than all the information I have read and the photos that I have seen.

[Walt Cakebread]

Nice work there Jerry, thanks! If I am looking at this correctly, the 2” tape appears to be the closest in relative scale. If that is true, what does that say about the size of the card?

Note, I have to say that it was more than a little bit eerie to put my hand up to the screen to compare the size of my hand to the size of the LHO print. It brought home the fact that he was human better than all the information I have read and the photos that I have seen.

If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?   

[Charles Collins]

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.




(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

I used a touch screen and zoomed it to match my palm. The action of putting my palm close to the image of his palm print gave me the eerie feeling.

[Walt Cakebread]

Not all at once. Just did an experiment. Grasped a 5/8" tube as if it were holding a heavy metal barrel. Then eased the grip by lifting the thumb and allowing the palm to relax. All of the fingers still held onto the tube but the tube had rolled on the palm. This added more palm imprinting than the initial grasping.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Using the 2" as base.....you have indicated that the print spans about 1 1/2 inches.....   Since the circumference of the metal barrel is 2.2 inches and just a small fraction larger than 2 inches..... Ten the so called "palm print" would have wrapped 3/4 of the way around the metal barrel...But Day said that he saw a small portion of the print on the side of the barrel and that prompted him to remove the wooden foregrip. Then he saw the print on the bottom of the barrel.....  Day's description covers about 1/3 of the barrel or .....about 5/8".....     

5/8" is no where near the 1 1/2 inch that you are proffering.....

[Charles Collins]

If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?

If you look at the shape of the palm print relative to the length of the tape (or the lift if you prefer) it appears to me that LHO was holding the barrel of the rifle at an angle similar to the natural way that I would pick it up. Here is a photo of a 5/8” diameter wooden dowel in my hand for an illustration:



As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the way around the barrel to span the width of the tape. We are just eyeballing the images to get a rough idea of the width of the tape. I am sure there is a more scientific way to measure these things. The tape might be closer to 1-1/2” wide than 2” wide. But I don’t believe that the reason for your theory of 1” wide is accurate.

[Walt Cakebread]

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.




(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

You need to put a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long.... Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?