What factual information did Mr Collins present that I should have accepted?
For you "debate" is an euphemism for I won't change my mind one bit. Quite the opposite of "arguing and presenting utter nonsense," Charles tested fairly your hypothesis with experimentation.
Never mind Walt, we will just go with the measurement that you gave as at the bayonet lug: 16.68 mm, which is equal to 0.66". Using the formula for circumference of a circle, 2 pi R, we can calculate the circumference of the barrel at that point to be 2.07". Therefore 2" tape will not quite span the entire circumference of the barrel at that point. Jerry's diagrams are very useful for an experiment that I did to satisfy myself that the tape is about 2" wide and therefore the lines are about 5/16" apart. I printed the entire palm print on a piece of paper so that it closely matches the size of my actual palm. I have short fingers and LHO did not, but the size of the palm itself is what I used to compare my palm with my paper print of the palm print. The bottom row of Jerry's diagram contains two other partial prints. One is the area of the palm in which the lift from the rifle is found. I printed this on paper such that it's size matched the drawn square on the full palm print (which I had already printed scaled to my palm). This allowed me to test a scaled image of the print for fit. The creases matched well with the scaled LHO palm print, therefore it also is to the same scale as my palm. All of this gives me assurances that these images that I printed on paper are to a reasonably realistic full scale. This better image also shows the contours of the ridges (which are used for ID purposes) that form the palm print. Then I printed the other image in the bottom row of Jerry's diagram. This image shows the lift on the tape. I scaled it the same way that I did the partial palm print and compared the ridges on the lift to the ones on the palm print. They are to the same scale. Therefore, I am assured that the print I made of the image of the lift is to the proper scale. Measuring the width of the tape, it is very close to 2". Measuring the lift that is on that 2" tape I measure it taking up about 1-1/4" of the 2" width. And it measures about 2-1/4" going lengthwise on the tape. Jerry is probably correct about the rolling of the barrel in relation to the palm when gripping and/or releasing the grip. I believe that this would account for the print spanning more than half the circumference of the barrel.
Your hanging on to your beliefs in the face of ample evidence against them is typical of the nay sayers in general. As I said before, I don't expect you to change your tune. But I have proven to myself that the tape is ~2" and the teeth in the bayonet lug made the impressions (two lines) in the bottom of the barrel which showed up on the lift.
(The fingers would not be pressed against the palm, as shown here, but rather wrapped around the barrel being gripped.)
Question: Do you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube? My answer:
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.
I think it was also established that the palm-print lift was done using 2"-wide tape and that, prior to making the lift, the bayonet lug was moved forward out of the way along the tapered end of the barrel.
