Here is a photo of a ~3//8" square dowel glued onto the 5/8" dowel to simulate the part of the barrel in the vicinity of where the palm print was lifted. The muzzle end is on the camera left.I have considered the orientation of the contour lines of the palm print lift and found it on the palm print card and considered the orientation of those contour lines on the hand that made that print. And I currently believe that these items show that the barrel was picked up as shown in my demonstration photos below. As you can see the pertinent area of the palm is in contact with the barrel.Here are some photos of some 2" wide clear shipping tape applied to the barrel and wrapped at least half-way around it. I had scribbled a little bit with a pencil in the area where I believe that the palm print would have been lifted from. The scribbling does not go half-way around the barrel. In hindsight I think I would have scribbled about half-way around if I were to do it again.I then removed the 2" tape from the barrel (dowel). The graphite scribbles were "lifted" by the tape. Then the "lift" was applied to an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of printing paper.Thanks for the challenge Walt. This was fun. And it help confirm to me that there is nothing "impossible" about the lift that Day did on 11/22/63.
Charles .... You're altering the "evidence". Jerry claims that the two parallel lines that are clearly visible on the right hand side of the photo were made by the 3/8" bayonet lug that protruded from the bottom of the barrel ....therefore the tape must extend past the bayonet lug.... And your photo clearly shows that if you had placed the tape on top of the lug ( represented by the 3/8 wooden block that you've glued to the "barrel ) the tape would not have made contact with the pencil scribbling..... PS Jerry understood the problem and his solution was " Detective Day cut a slot in the tape" to allow the rectangular bayonet lug to lie flat against the barrel.... Of course there isn't an iota evidence that Day "cut a slot in the tape", but desperation creates weird solutions....You're wasting your time if you're not going to stick with the evidence presented.... l
While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.
You're wasting your time if you're not going to stick with the evidence presented.... l
The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. The lines that are clearly visible on the right of the index card most certainly are parallel.....I'm looking at a carcano foregrip as I type this.....The bayonet blade slot that was cut into the wood was apparently made by a tool similar to a small circular saw blade about 3/16 of an inch thick, with a diameter of about 1/2 inch ( the depth of the slot ) ....The distance between the parallel lines in the photo is 3/16 " ( the same as the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip.)
Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.
