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.
