RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

Isn't this Day doubling down on his insistence that there was an identifiable print on the barrel of the rifle before it was taken by Drain?
The remainder of this print had resisted being lifted because it was an old print and was clearly fixed in place.
However, when the rifle is examined by Latona this print is gone. There is absolutely no sign of it's presence.
There is also no sign of a speck of the powder used to raise the print.
Latona examined this rifle in meticulous detail. There was no print and no sign that an attempt had been made to lift a print.
There had been no mention made of a print being taken from the weapon that allegedly murdered the present.

The more I think about this palm print the more it becomes obvious how massively significant it is. It is possibly the most important piece of evidence in this case. There is nothing that links Oswald to the rifle like the palm print. It is central to identifying Oswald as the murderer.
By the night of the assassination Day would have irrefutable evidence that Oswald had contact with the murder weapon.
So, where was the big announcement regarding this game-changing piece of evidence?
Almost every detail of this case was gleefully passed on to the media, where are the reports?
Who else, other than Day, knew about this case-closing piece of evidence?
How could it not have crossed Day's mind not to pass on this most important piece of evidence to the FBI?
How is it conceivable that Day neglected to mention to Day he had identified Oswald's print on the rifle?
[Remember, Day had the print off the rifle and a sample of Oswald's palm print. Identifying this print would have been the very top priority.]


Other than Day's word for it, what evidence exists, testimonial or otherwise, regarding the existence of the palm print prior to it's arrival on Latona's desk on the 29th?

Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.

This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.

[Richard Smith]

Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.

This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.

Even if your assumption was true that he didn't tell anyone for "days" (and there is abundant evidence this is a false premise), how exactly is that evidence of fabrication or whatever you are alleging to call into question the print?  It is idiocy to argue that because he didn't tell anyone for a few days, that means for some inexplicable reason that Day manufactured and lied about the print.

[Charles Collins]

Even if your assumption was true that he didn't tell anyone for "days" (and there is abundant evidence this is a false premise), how exactly is that evidence of fabrication or whatever you are alleging to call into question the print?  It is idiocy to argue that because he didn't tell anyone for a few days, that means for some inexplicable reason that Day manufactured and lied about the print.

The palm print was not some big secret that Day kept to himself. Rusty Livingston and a few others who worked in the DPD crime lab told Gary Savage that they saw the palm print on 11/22/63 and the following weekend. The details can be found in Gary’s book: “JFK First Day Evidence.” The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.

[Martin Weidmann]

Even if your assumption was true that he didn't tell anyone for "days" (and there is abundant evidence this is a false premise), how exactly is that evidence of fabrication or whatever you are alleging to call into question the print?  It is idiocy to argue that because he didn't tell anyone for a few days, that means for some inexplicable reason that Day manufactured and lied about the print.

But that's not what I am arguing. My point has been and will always be that evidence can not be credible and needs to be called into question when it can not be authenticated. I know, that's a concept that goes way over your head, but then, you're not an LN for nothing.

Btw, tell me what is this "abundant evidence" you are rambling on about? All you've got is "cop said so", isn't it? 

[Martin Weidmann]

The palm print was not some big secret that Day kept to himself. Rusty Livingston and a few others who worked in the DPD crime lab told Gary Savage that they saw the palm print on 11/22/63 and the following weekend. The details can be found in Gary’s book: “JFK First Day Evidence.” The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.

And there is another reference to a book, written 30 years after the fact....

The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.

Perhaps they are simply not interested in what somebody selling a book wrote in that book, with the benefit of hindsight and plenty of opportunity for revision of history.

LNs can twist and turn all they want, the fact remains that the evidence card with the palm print didn't make it's way into the official evidentiary record until the FBI collected all the evidence for the second time.

[David Von Pein]

Perhaps they are simply not interested in what somebody selling a book wrote in that book, with the benefit of hindsight and plenty of opportunity for revision of history.

Paul Landis in 2023, anyone?

[Charles Collins]

The official evidentiary record rested with the DPD on 11/22/63. The other personnel that Gary Savage wrote about and worked in the DPD crime lab were listed in the WC records. Yet Gary was apparently the first author to write about them. Why were none of the CT authors interested in them for the thirty years prior to Gary’s book?

[Royell Storing]

Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.

This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.

   Agree. It's like Fritz pocketing a shell husk allegedly from the sniper's nest. And then we get people questioning there ever being a 2 shot scenario being considered in the face of official paper work listing only 2 hulls. They believe only what they want to believe. Forget the FACTS.