RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged

This is a figment of your imagination. You jumped to this conclusion all by yourself.

You've tried this piss-weak approach already, Charles, and it was dealt with then.

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.

This is Drain's opinion regarding the palm print Day handed in to the FBI, that it was faked using a pre-existing print of Oswald's and the MC.
But then Drain goes on to qualify this opinion in a piece that you posted trying to undermine Drain's opinion [talk about backfiring]:

"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."

Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His opinion was formed from "what they said" - the "they" in question being the FBI's specialists in fingerprints.
He got his opinion from the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
And that opinion was that the palm print had been faked.

Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.

Take a look at Jerry Organ’s graphic in post #293 of this thread.

I'm well aware of Jerry's graphic, just as I'm aware of Day's first FBI interview with Bardwell Odum taken the day after Latona received the fake palm print. From Pat Speer's website:

"[Day] also advised that even before he took the stock off, he saw what appeared to be traces of palm print coming out from under the wood near the back and of the metal portion of the gun. This print was partially covered by the wood."

It was Jack who posted some  piece he'd lifted from somewhere about the print that was "sticking out" being the print that was lifted and he was being called out on it.
But let's not forget the important thing here - it wasn't just the remainder of the print that Day supposedly lifted that went missing, it was this other print as well. Two prints that disappeared from the barrel of the rifle, not just one.
What are the chances Latona missed one print? - almost zero.
What are the chances Latona missed two prints?

And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?

[Charles Collins]

You've tried this piss-weak approach already, Charles, and it was dealt with then.

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.

This is Drain's opinion regarding the palm print Day handed in to the FBI, that it was faked using a pre-existing print of Oswald's and the MC.
But then Drain goes on to qualify this opinion in a piece that you posted trying to undermine Drain's opinion [talk about backfiring]:

"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."

Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His opinion was formed from "what they said" - the "they" in question being the FBI's specialists in fingerprints.
He got his opinion from the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
And that opinion was that the palm print had been faked.

Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.

I'm well aware of Jerry's graphic, just as I'm aware of Day's first FBI interview with Bardwell Odum taken the day after Latona received the fake palm print. From Pat Speer's website:

"[Day] also advised that even before he took the stock off, he saw what appeared to be traces of palm print coming out from under the wood near the back and of the metal portion of the gun. This print was partially covered by the wood."

It was Jack who posted some  piece he'd lifted from somewhere about the print that was "sticking out" being the print that was lifted and he was being called out on it.
But let's not forget the important thing here - it wasn't just the remainder of the print that Day supposedly lifted that went missing, it was this other print as well. Two prints that disappeared from the barrel of the rifle, not just one.
What are the chances Latona missed one print? - almost zero.
What are the chances Latona missed two prints?

And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?

Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.

Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."



That is not what Drain said. You are trying (lamely) to do what every freaking CT author tries to do. Take short phrases out of context and try to spin them to suit their purposes.



And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?

Is there another set of FBI specialists that it could have been? Who were they?

[Dan O'meara]

Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.

Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."



That is not what Drain said. You are trying (lamely) to do what every freaking CT author tries to do. Take short phrases out of context and try to spin them to suit their purposes.

And you're doing what you always do when you can't face the reality of the evidence. You fall back to childish semantics and point-scoring.
Bring it on. I am very patient and will not be deflected from where the evidence leads because there is a very big difference between the two of us - I really want to understand what actually happened in this case.
It's only dawned on me recently that many LNers have the same mentality as the real tinfoil merchants. They cannot be reasoned with and spend most of their time in denial.
The only difference between nearly all LNers and the tinfoilers is that they get to weave whatever fantastical story they wish out of the most meagre evidence whereas you are trapped in someone elses conclusion. You have been spoon fed your thoughts on this case. Someone has done all the thinking for you.
You accept that there is nothing suspicious about Day not photographing either of the prints on the barrel. That he broke the most basic protocol when dealing with fingerprints - photograph first, then lift. Even though he had previously photographed the prints on the trigger housing so was ready to go with the photography.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day's tale of destroying the palm print by lifting part of it and leaving part of it on the barrel AND THEN deciding to photograph it.
You accept Day's tale that he felt, even though he had more or less destroyed the print, the FBI would have enough to get an ID from the remainder of the print left on the barrel so he didn't need to hand in the print he'd lifted. You accept that nonsense.
Your desperate attempts to explain why both prints disappeared by the time the rifle reached Latona would be funny if they didn't reveal the intractable mentality that is the backbone of the LNer position. Latona, who must be considered one of the world's leading fingerprint experts at the time, examined every inch of the rifle. He brought in a specialist photographer and worked under all lighting conditions. He brought in a weapons expert to dismantle the rifle. He brought his decades of experience to bear on the most important object he had ever examined, in the most important case he had ever been involved with.
Your assertions - that he just covered the rifle in powder so he missed the two prints on the barrel or that he had something wrong with his eyesight - reveal the depths of your desperation not to deal with the reality of this case.
The prints Day claimed were on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain (and let's not forget, one of these prints was on so stubbornly it refused to be removed by lifting with tape) disappeared completely by the time they reached Latona. They were not missed by Latona during his examination of the rifle, that can be stated with immense confidence.
You also accept Day's lie that he didn't have enough time to make an identification from the lift using the prints taken from Oswald. This is a lie. He had days to make the identification. You don't even bother to try to come up with an excuse for why you accept this.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day never submitting an official report outlining his handling of this fundamentally important piece of evidence or that he refused to sign an official FBI report about the matter or that he never bothered to mention the palm print to the FBI.

But it's not that you try to brush away each individual piece of evidence, it's that you ignore the totality of this evidence that reveals the depths of your denial.
Which brings us to Drain's statements about the palm print:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

This is a totally straight forward statement. There is nothing hidden.
"Something like that happened" - something like taking the print off Oswald's card and putting it on the rifle happened.
This is an unequivocal statement - the palm print was faked. There's no other way to interpret this

"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."

Again, there is nothing hidden here. Drain is specifically stating that he was told by the fingerprint specialists in the Single Fingerprint Bureau that the palm print was faked.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of this.
It is not a figment of my imagination.
It is not a conclusion I am jumping to.

Do you accept that Drain is saying he was told by the FBI fingerprint experts that the palm print was faked?

And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?

Is there another set of FBI specialists that it could have been? Who were they?

It is clear from Drain's quote above he is referring to whoever took the rifle apart and examined it.
It must surely be a reference to Latona.

[Charles Collins]

And you're doing what you always do when you can't face the reality of the evidence. You fall back to childish semantics and point-scoring.
Bring it on. I am very patient and will not be deflected from where the evidence leads because there is a very big difference between the two of us - I really want to understand what actually happened in this case.
It's only dawned on me recently that many LNers have the same mentality as the real tinfoil merchants. They cannot be reasoned with and spend most of their time in denial.
The only difference between nearly all LNers and the tinfoilers is that they get to weave whatever fantastical story they wish out of the most meagre evidence whereas you are trapped in someone elses conclusion. You have been spoon fed your thoughts on this case. Someone has done all the thinking for you.
You accept that there is nothing suspicious about Day not photographing either of the prints on the barrel. That he broke the most basic protocol when dealing with fingerprints - photograph first, then lift. Even though he had previously photographed the prints on the trigger housing so was ready to go with the photography.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day's tale of destroying the palm print by lifting part of it and leaving part of it on the barrel AND THEN deciding to photograph it.
You accept Day's tale that he felt, even though he had more or less destroyed the print, the FBI would have enough to get an ID from the remainder of the print left on the barrel so he didn't need to hand in the print he'd lifted. You accept that nonsense.
Your desperate attempts to explain why both prints disappeared by the time the rifle reached Latona would be funny if they didn't reveal the intractable mentality that is the backbone of the LNer position. Latona, who must be considered one of the world's leading fingerprint experts at the time, examined every inch of the rifle. He brought in a specialist photographer and worked under all lighting conditions. He brought in a weapons expert to dismantle the rifle. He brought his decades of experience to bear on the most important object he had ever examined, in the most important case he had ever been involved with.
Your assertions - that he just covered the rifle in powder so he missed the two prints on the barrel or that he had something wrong with his eyesight - reveal the depths of your desperation not to deal with the reality of this case.
The prints Day claimed were on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain (and let's not forget, one of these prints was on so stubbornly it refused to be removed by lifting with tape) disappeared completely by the time they reached Latona. They were not missed by Latona during his examination of the rifle, that can be stated with immense confidence.
You also accept Day's lie that he didn't have enough time to make an identification from the lift using the prints taken from Oswald. This is a lie. He had days to make the identification. You don't even bother to try to come up with an excuse for why you accept this.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day never submitting an official report outlining his handling of this fundamentally important piece of evidence or that he refused to sign an official FBI report about the matter or that he never bothered to mention the palm print to the FBI.

But it's not that you try to brush away each individual piece of evidence, it's that you ignore the totality of this evidence that reveals the depths of your denial.
Which brings us to Drain's statements about the palm print:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

This is a totally straight forward statement. There is nothing hidden.
"Something like that happened" - something like taking the print off Oswald's card and putting it on the rifle happened.
This is an unequivocal statement - the palm print was faked. There's no other way to interpret this

"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."

Again, there is nothing hidden here. Drain is specifically stating that he was told by the fingerprint specialists in the Single Fingerprint Bureau that the palm print was faked.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of this.
It is not a figment of my imagination.
It is not a conclusion I am jumping to.

Do you accept that Drain is saying he was told by the FBI fingerprint experts that the palm print was faked?

It is clear from Drain's quote above he is referring to whoever took the rifle apart and examined it.
It must surely be a reference to Latona.

Again, there is nothing hidden here. Drain is specifically stating that he was told by the fingerprint specialists in the Single Fingerprint Bureau that the palm print was faked.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of this.
It is not a figment of my imagination.
It is not a conclusion I am jumping to.

Do you accept that Drain is saying he was told by the FBI fingerprint experts that the palm print was faked?

I repeat, that is not what Drain said. You have jumped to this nutty conclusion (among others).



It is clear from Drain's quote above he is referring to whoever took the rifle apart and examined it.
It must surely be a reference to Latona.


Would this be the same technicians who indicated their tests confirm that the palm print lift came from the rifle? The same technicians who provided their test results to Hoover and the WC? If they really thought the palm print was faked, why the heck didn’t they tell anyone else other than (in your mind only) Drain?


"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

Yet, as far as we know, even after almost 60-years, no one (I repeat, no one) has shown that this was even possible.


Again, you have jumped to conclusions, tried (lamely I must add) to spin a few words to try to make them suit your purposes. Hopefully one day (pun intended) you might wake up and realize your folly.

[Jack Nessan]

You really don't seem to be grasping this very simple concept Jack.
I am not saying that the palm print Day eventually handed over to the FBI didn't come from the Mannlicher Carcano.
I am saying that it did come from the MC. I can't put it in a way that is simpler for you to understand.
I am agreeing with you that the palm print came from the MC.
I can even go so far as to say the unsubstantiated and unofficial comparison between the palm print Day handed in and the print of the rifle barrel itself "authenticates" that the palm print Day handed in was from the barrel of the MC.
You really do not seem to grasp this simple concept.

Another simple concept that you don't seem to be grasping is that the comparison in the Hoover letter DOES NOT CONFIRM THERE WAS A PRINT ON THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE WHEN DAY FIRST EXAMINED IT.
Hoover's comparison letter CANNOT confirm this. It's impossible.
In my Reply#421 I laid out some serious issues regarding whether or not there was a palm print on the barrel of the MC. Through SA Drain we find out that it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged, that is to say, the palm print was not on the MC when Day first examined it and that he used one of the palm prints taken from Oswald and the MC to execute this forgery - "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” [SA Vince Drain]

Even though you were initially responding to Reply#421 you never dealt with a single issue raised in that post.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
You are in denial.

There's no need to buy a Carcano.
I posted a link to a picture of a dismantled Carcano and asked you [or any LNer for that matter] a very simple question.
You posted this passage from somewhere you have still refused to cite:

Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.


In this passage we learn that Day sees a print "sticking out from the barrel" and that this is the print he lifts from the barrel.
We know that the palm print lift Day took was from the underside of the barrel.
But when we look at a dismantled MC we see there is a piece of metal fixed to the underside of the barrel where the wooden stock attaches to the barrel at the muzzle end.
So, it is impossible for the print to be "sticking out" at this point because of the metal fixing on the underside of the barrel.

SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?

Here's the link to the picture in question so you can see exactly the problem Day has created for himself:

https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p

Answer the question Jack - where on the barrel of the MC is the print that is "sticking out"?

HUH. What. I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you. The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery? This is definitely new. You came up with this all on your own?

------------------------------------------------

 

You have presented a picture of a disassembled Carcano as proof of what? This explanation by Lt. Day of discovering the print makes perfect sense if you know how the rifle stock is removed. He discovered it while removing the stock to see if there were any prints on the metal. The same thought as to why the scope was removed.


Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.

Can you really not understand this?

-------------------------------

The Foregrip is also referred to as the hand guard on top of the rifle. Not the bottom stock like what you are representing. The print was located on the barrel below the end of the top handguard not by the bayonet lug.

“A foregrip is an accessory that is attached to the front of a firearm’s stock to provide additional support and control over the weapon. It is typically used on rifles and shotguns, and can be made from a variety of materials such as polymer, aluminum, or steel. The foregrip is also known as the fore-end or handguard 1.”

[Martin Weidmann]

HUH. What. I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you. The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery? This is definitely new. You came up with this all on your own?

------------------------------------------------

You have presented a picture of a disassembled Carcano as proof of what? This explanation by Lt. Day of discovering the print makes perfect sense if you know how the rifle stock is removed. He discovered it while removing the stock to see if there were any prints on the metal. The same thought as to why the scope was removed.


Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.

Can you really not understand this?

-------------------------------

The Foregrip is also referred to as the hand guard on top of the rifle. Not the bottom stock like what you are representing. The print was located on the barrel below the end of the top handguard not by the bayonet lug.

“A foregrip is an accessory that is attached to the front of a firearm’s stock to provide additional support and control over the weapon. It is typically used on rifles and shotguns, and can be made from a variety of materials such as polymer, aluminum, or steel. The foregrip is also known as the fore-end or handguard 1.”

I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you.

What Dan wrote makes perfect sense to anybody who knows how to understand what is written.

The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery?

Dan never claimed that the print is a forgery.

You have presented a picture of a disassembled Carcano as proof of what? This explanation by Lt. Day of discovering the print makes perfect sense if you know how the rifle stock is removed. He discovered it while removing the stock to see if there were any prints on the metal. The same thought as to why the scope was removed.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.

Can you really not understand this?

Easy to understand alright and it will likely convince the most gullible among us.

It's the classic "cop said so" BS that is supposed to authenticate the palmprint, by ignoring all the obvious problems caused by Day's strange behavior. But it didn't convince Rankin and Liebeler of the WC who not only questioned the authenticity of the print but also wondered if it had possibly come from another source. When they asked Day for an additional explanation, in September 1964, Day refused to put anything in writing. Go figure.....

[Dan O'meara]

HUH. What. I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you. The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery? This is definitely new. You came up with this all on your own?

There were no prints on the barrel of the Mannlicher Carcano when Day first examined the rifle.
Do you understand this statement.

Day used a fresh print taken from Oswald and placed it on the barrel of the rifle.

Day then dusted this fresh print and lifted it from the rifle. This lifted print is Oswald's palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle.

Day used a fresh print from Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano to create a print that had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle.
The print Day lifted really did come from the barrel of the MC.
The print Day lifted really did belong to Oswald.
That is why the palm print is an "authentic" Oswald print taken from the barrel of the MC but is also a fake.
It really cannot be explained in any simpler terms.

Was this my idea?
No, it wasn't.
SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

[Jack Nessan]

There were no prints on the barrel of the Mannlicher Carcano when Day first examined the rifle.
Do you understand this statement.

Day used a fresh print taken from Oswald and placed it on the barrel of the rifle.

Day then dusted this fresh print and lifted it from the rifle. This lifted print is Oswald's palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle.

Day used a fresh print from Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano to create a print that had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle.
The print Day lifted really did come from the barrel of the MC.
The print Day lifted really did belong to Oswald.
That is why the palm print is an "authentic" Oswald print taken from the barrel of the MC but is also a fake.
It really cannot be explained in any simpler terms.

Was this my idea?
No, it wasn't.
SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:
 
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

 
I think you need to think this through a little more. 

Not only was SA Drain the first to think of this, he was also the last and should have been the only one. It absolutely defies common sense on so many levels.

SA Drain was not a fingerprint expert. He was an FBI toadstool and juice box boy who had been stationed in Dallas for many years and was just used to expedite the evidence to DC, nothing more. 

There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.