A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Walt Cakebread]

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.



(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:

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.

Mr Collins said that the two parallel lines that are seen in the "palm print" photo are 5/16 inches apart.   

There are no such lines on the metal barrel of a carcano.   But if there were...... then they would be on opposite sides of the barrel.......   

   

[Jerry Organ]

For you "debate" is an euphemism for I won't change my mind one bit.

Your right ....When I have measuring devices that verify a dimension....   I'd be insane if I denied the caliper and accepted some other dimension.  So you're right, I won't change my mind....


the bayonet lug was moved forward out of the way along the tapered end of the barrel.


It's easy to make up stuff..... That Bayonet lug isn't "movable", without the tool for removing it.

At 2:34 time, the bayonet lug is moved forward by tapping with the end of a screwdriver.

[Walt Cakebread]

At 2:34 time, the bayonet lug is moved forward by tapping with the end of a screwdriver.

Ok, my mistake.... I've never removed the bayonet lug and I was under the impression that it require a special tool.   

Now then.... how do you explain the two parallel lines that Charles said were 5/16 of an inch apart?   If they were 5/16 of an inch apart they would be on opposite sides of the barrel because the barrel is 11/16 of an inch in diameter at that point.   

[Walt Cakebread]

At 2:34 time, the bayonet lug is moved forward by tapping with the end of a screwdriver.

I've been searching for your post in which you said that the two parallel lines were made by the bayonet lug.

I wanted to verify that that is what you wrote.... I can't find that post so perhaps you can explain it again....

What caused the two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo of the so called palm print?

[Jerry Organ]

I've been searching for your post in which you said that the two parallel lines were made by the bayonet lug.

I wanted to verify that that is what you wrote.... I can't find that post so perhaps you can explain it again....

What caused the two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo of the so called palm print?

No prob', buddy.

    "It appears to me that the contact between the moveable bayonet lug and
     the underside of the barrel could create some rough spots on the underside
     of the barrel (which would be in the form of two parallel lines). When Day
     needed to apply the tape to the underside of the barrel, all he needed to do
     was slide the bayonet lug away from the print (towards the muzzle end of
     the barrel. The rough spots (in the form of two parallel lines) could retain
     some of the fingerprint powder. And those rough spots would show up on
     the lift as two parallel lines."

See post by Charles Collins here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3030.msg114974.html#msg114974 on Page 29 of the Topic: "Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?" Link.

[Walt Cakebread]

No prob', buddy.

    "It appears to me that the contact between the moveable bayonet lug and
     the underside of the barrel could create some rough spots on the underside
     of the barrel (which would be in the form of two parallel lines). When Day
     needed to apply the tape to the underside of the barrel, all he needed to do
     was slide the bayonet lug away from the print (towards the muzzle end of
     the barrel. The rough spots (in the form of two parallel lines) could retain
     some of the fingerprint powder. And those rough spots would show up on
     the lift as two parallel lines."

See post by Charles Collins here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3030.msg114974.html#msg114974 on Page 29 of the Topic: "Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?" Link.

Thank you for providing the photos that lead you to believe the two parallel lines were made by the bayonet lug.

I'd suggest that you think about that idea....  Because is not plausible.   We need the palm print posted again so we can discuss the plausibility of your idea.

As I recall detective Day said that he saw some of the print on the metal barrel sticking out from beneath the wooden foregrip, so he decided to dismantle the rifle to expose the entire print.   

Do I have that right?

 Charles Collins posted this last year.....
I don't know why I missed this post by Charles Collins

I ran across this photo which shows more clearly that the two edges which contact the underside of the barrel are rough. It appears to me that there are teeth intentionally made into the edges. These teeth are slanted such that they would grip the underside of the barrel when the lug is pushed back towards the bolt, and would release very easily when it is pushed toward the muzzle end of the barrel. Also, take another look at the two lines on the lift done by Day. They look to me like impressions left on the underside of the barrel by similar teeth could have formed them. (Where's a forensic dentist when we need one?   )

[Walt Cakebread]

Thank you for providing the photos that lead you to believe the two parallel lines were made by the bayonet lug.

I'd suggest that you think about that idea....  Because is not plausible.   We need the palm print posted again so we can discuss the plausibility of your idea.

As I recall detective Day said that he saw some of the print on the metal barrel sticking out from beneath the wooden foregrip, so he decided to dismantle the rifle to expose the entire print.   

Do I have that right?

 Charles Collins posted this last year.....
I don't know why I missed this post by Charles Collins

I ran across this photo which shows more clearly that the two edges which contact the underside of the barrel are rough. It appears to me that there are teeth intentionally made into the edges. These teeth are slanted such that they would grip the underside of the barrel when the lug is pushed back towards the bolt, and would release very easily when it is pushed toward the muzzle end of the barrel. Also, take another look at the two lines on the lift done by Day. They look to me like impressions left on the underside of the barrel by similar teeth could have formed them. (Where's a forensic dentist when we need one?   )

This is NOT a baynet lug for a model 91/38 carcano ...... The 91/38 has two holes for the front barrel band and this lug has only one.   This lug is similar but it is not the correct bayonet lug.

[Jerry Organ]

This is NOT a baynet lug for a model 91/38 carcano ...... The 91/38 has two holes for the from barrel band and this lug has only one.   This lug is similar but it is not the correct bayonet lug.

The bayonet lug had one bolt hole and the heavy metal barrel band had two.


Just to show you I ain't pulling your leg, here's the Oswald rifle:


Finally, in the graphic below, the top inset shows how everything fitted together. Two bolts through the heavy metal barrel band and just one through the bayonet lug. It didn't need two bolts because the lug was additionally secured through friction to the barrel itself.



The folded bayonet.