Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Palmprint  (Read 12792 times)

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2024, 11:44:13 PM »
Advertisement
All these mysteries disappear if we accept that the palmprint was faked.

Until you acknowledge the FBI put this to bed in September of 1964, after all this hand wringing had taken place, simply by the authentication of the palm print on the barrel of the Carcano by referencing the irregularities of the Carcano barrel, it will be forever a mystery.

Yeah Jack, you use this child-like "logic" over and over again.
JUST LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO.
The unofficial letter you refer to DOES NOT PROVE THE PRINT WASN'T FAKED.
When will you get that into your thick skull.

The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in this thread.
Such as - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to between being handed over by Day and received by Latona?
They disappeared.
Jack, answer this simple question - how could they disappear?
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer this question.

It doesn't answer why Day used black powder on a dark surface when a novice would have known to use grey powder.
It doesn't answer why Day didn't photograph the print before he attempted the lift, when a novice would have known to do this.
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.
It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.
It doesn't answer why Day just stuck the lifted palmprint in his drawer when every ounce of his energy should have been used to identify this print as belonging to Oswald.
It doesn't answer why Day insisted he didn't have enough time to make the identification when he had the lifted palmprint and Oswald's actual palmprint for days. Plenty of time to make the identification.

There are so many issues that Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer.
The point of the letter is to give gullible buffoons an easy way out.

Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2024, 11:44:13 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #65 on: September 24, 2024, 09:54:31 AM »
Yeah Jack, you use this child-like "logic" over and over again.
JUST LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO.
The unofficial letter you refer to DOES NOT PROVE THE PRINT WASN'T FAKED.
When will you get that into your thick skull.

The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in this thread.
Such as - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to between being handed over by Day and received by Latona?
They disappeared.
Jack, answer this simple question - how could they disappear?
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer this question.

It doesn't answer why Day used black powder on a dark surface when a novice would have known to use grey powder.
It doesn't answer why Day didn't photograph the print before he attempted the lift, when a novice would have known to do this.
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.
It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.
It doesn't answer why Day just stuck the lifted palmprint in his drawer when every ounce of his energy should have been used to identify this print as belonging to Oswald.
It doesn't answer why Day insisted he didn't have enough time to make the identification when he had the lifted palmprint and Oswald's actual palmprint for days. Plenty of time to make the identification.

There are so many issues that Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer.
The point of the letter is to give gullible buffoons an easy way out.

Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.

“Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.”

 
Dan, this is actually two points, but I will be OK with it. It will just take longer to answer.

Point 1: “where did the two sets of prints disappear to.”

 
What two sets of prints?

Point 2: “where did the fingerprint powder disappear to.”

No idea, but I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?

“The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in the thread.”


Hoover wrote an unofficial document, which authenticated the palmprints, to Rankin and to the WC on FBI letterheads? For what reason? The lab authenticated the palmprint, not Hoover.

Authenticating means just that. They positively identified the palmprint to the exclusion of all others.

 FBI Report --   “This palm print lift has been compared with the assassination rifle in the FBI Laboratory . The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having com from the assassination rifle in the area of the wooden foregrip . This conclusion is based on a comparison of irregularities in the surface of the metal of the barrel with the impressions of these irregularities an shown in the lift . A photograph marked to show several of the irregularities referred to is attached”


I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?

The only real question here is why are you struggling with this? Hard to imagine how someone could not understand authenticating a palmprint on a barrel of a rifle using the irregularities of the barrel.

 

“Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.”

“It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.”


First, it is not unofficial, and second how is it a major conspiracy guy like yourself cannot weave a story about the possible reason for Curry and Fritz, and Day’s omission? It seems as if that would be some kind of a given for a real die-hard conspiracy guy. The problem will always be it was authenticated by the FBI Lab.

Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #66 on: September 29, 2024, 02:15:31 AM »
“Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.”

 
Dan, this is actually two points, but I will be OK with it. It will just take longer to answer.

Point 1: “where did the two sets of prints disappear to.”

 
What two sets of prints?

Point 2: “where did the fingerprint powder disappear to.”

No idea, but I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?

“The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in the thread.”


Hoover wrote an unofficial document, which authenticated the palmprints, to Rankin and to the WC on FBI letterheads? For what reason? The lab authenticated the palmprint, not Hoover.

Authenticating means just that. They positively identified the palmprint to the exclusion of all others.

 FBI Report --   “This palm print lift has been compared with the assassination rifle in the FBI Laboratory . The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having com from the assassination rifle in the area of the wooden foregrip . This conclusion is based on a comparison of irregularities in the surface of the metal of the barrel with the impressions of these irregularities an shown in the lift . A photograph marked to show several of the irregularities referred to is attached”


I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?

The only real question here is why are you struggling with this? Hard to imagine how someone could not understand authenticating a palmprint on a barrel of a rifle using the irregularities of the barrel.

 

“Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.”

“It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.”


First, it is not unofficial, and second how is it a major conspiracy guy like yourself cannot weave a story about the possible reason for Curry and Fritz, and Day’s omission? It seems as if that would be some kind of a given for a real die-hard conspiracy guy. The problem will always be it was authenticated by the FBI Lab.

Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had

What two sets of prints?

 ;D
Although it's irritating, I have to admire your chutzpah for taking part in a debate when you are so unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of it.
Once again I find myself in a position where I have to hold your hand and guide you through these most basic points.

You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]
I really do recommend that you read through Day's WC testimony. It will really help your understanding of this aspect of the case.
Now...... this thread is called "The Palmprint". This is a reference to a palmprint that Day claimed to have found on the barrel of the MC. This is one of the two sets of prints supposedly discovered that day. I should be surprised that I have to point out to you that this whole thread is about a set of prints left on the barrel of the MC. But I'm not.
This is going to come as a real shock to you and the rest of the Nutters who troll this forum:

"Mr. Belin: Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. Day: The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."


You must be really shocked to learn that Day testified that there was two sets of prints.
If only you were aware of the most basic aspects of this case. Please read the testimonies of the people involved before you feel you have the right to make some kind of comment on the case.
But the point isn't your massive ignorance of the case, it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand that Day was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC when he handed it over to Drain?
Do you need a diagram?

As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both of these prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared.
Like all Nutters, the only thing you can say when asked how this could be is that you have "No idea".

"NO IDEA."
Like all Nutters, you have NO IDEA how two sets of prints and accompanying fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the MC by the time it reached Latona.



"You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to"

Where you got the idea from, that the powder on the magazine housing "disappeared", just shows your massive ignorance of the case [yet again].
When you get a chance, read the WC testimony of Paul Strombaugh:

Mr. Stombaugh: Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.



"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".


You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.


You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.
You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.
Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?
You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
This is not good enough.
Oswald's palmprint on the murder weapon would be the most important piece of evidence discovered on the day of the assassination.
For this evidence to simply disappear is unacceptable.
How Nutters can just ignore it is unbelievable.

Either:
1] There was never a print on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the evening of the assassination.
2] Day's treatment of the palmprint was so embarrassingly inept that he wiped the barrel clean himself before giving it to Drain.
3] Day never even disassembled the rifle when he was examining it.




« Last Edit: September 30, 2024, 08:05:26 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #66 on: September 29, 2024, 02:15:31 AM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2024, 01:29:48 AM »


Could this be Day hurrying away with a fresh print of Oswald's right hand in one hand and an ink roller in the other.
I wonder where he's going with that?
I wonder why he never mentioned that he actually took a print of Oswald's right hand?

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2024, 02:26:33 AM »
What two sets of prints?

 ;D
Although it's irritating, I have to admire your chutzpah for taking part in a debate when you are so unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of it.
Once again I find myself in a position where I have to hold your hand and guide you through these most basic points.

You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]
I really do recommend that you read through Day's WC testimony. It will really help your understanding of this aspect of the case.
Now...... this thread is called "The Palmprint". This is a reference to a palmprint that Day claimed to have found on the barrel of the MC. This is one of the two sets of prints supposedly discovered that day. I should be surprised that I have to point out to you that this whole thread is about a set of prints left on the barrel of the MC. But I'm not.
This is going to come as a real shock to you and the rest of the Nutters who troll this forum:

"Mr. Belin: Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. Day: The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."


You must be really shocked to learn that Day testified that there was two sets of prints.
If only you were aware of the most basic aspects of this case. Please read the testimonies of the people involved before you feel you have the right to make some kind of comment on the case.
But the point isn't your massive ignorance of the case, it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand that Day was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC when he handed it over to Drain?
Do you need a diagram?

As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both of these prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared.
Like all Nutters, the only thing you can say when asked how this could be is that you have "No idea".

"NO IDEA."
Like all Nutters, you have NO IDEA how two sets of prints and accompanying fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the MC by the time it reached Latona.



"You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to"

Where you got the idea from, that the powder on the magazine housing "disappeared", just shows your massive ignorance of the case [yet again].
When you get a chance, read the WC testimony of Paul Strombaugh:

Mr. Stombaugh: Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.



"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".


You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.


You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.
You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.
Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?
You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
This is not good enough.
Oswald's palmprint on the murder weapon would be the most important piece of evidence discovered on the day of the assassination.
For this evidence to simply disappear is unacceptable.
How Nutters can just ignore it is unbelievable.

Either:
1] There was never a print on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the evening of the assassination.
2] Day's treatment of the palmprint was so embarrassingly inept that he wiped the barrel clean himself before giving it to Drain.
3] Day never even disassembled the rifle when he was examining it.

Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle.


DM---“it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.”

DM---“As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.”

DM---“You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]”


Huh?  What he states is there is “possibly” another print under the wood by the trigger housing. Two sets of prints on the barrel? Where does that even come from? It is not even possible to interpret Lt. Day’s statement in that way.

“Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
 
As you can see, LT Day never ever stated that there were two sets of prints on the barrel. They were never two sets of prints on the barrel. Not Ever. Lt Day thought the FBI should work to develop “Possibly” a print by the trigger guard or magazine housing. Lt Day was not sure it would even be a good print. Lt Day thought the prints were of LHO’s fingers. He photographed them instead of dust them with powder. The photographs of the prints are CE 721 and CE 722.

Here is the possible source of your delusion and confusion:

Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.

Once again you have managed to misinterpret the testimony of the people involved and have managed to create your own evidence. Mistakes and misinterpretations do occur but you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Instead of just reading an answer from the witness, try and understand it in the context of how it is asked.

 

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

 

 
DM---“You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.”

DM---“You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.

BUT IT DOESN'T.”

DM---“You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
But. unlike the gullible morons who swallow down everything the WC has to say, for some of us the "no idea" nonsense isn't good enough.”

DM---“You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.”

DM---"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".

DM- “Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?”



Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever.

But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari

Actually, I think even the most witless of people can figure out how dust could be missing from a surface of a smooth metal barrel. I was trying to be civil and not point it out.
 
Also, “all over the gun” would include the barrel. Stombaugh kind of shoots your whole storyline down by stating it was all over the woodstock. Hoover’s letter authenticating Oswald’s print on the barrel also removes any doubt as to authenticity of the palmprint.

To summarize your post: The palmprint is authentic courtesy of the FBI lab, the gun did have fingerprint powder all over it, and there is only one palmprint on the barrel. You are trying to make some point here but what is it again? 

But as it turns out the finger print powder did not disappear. Just ask Stombaugh.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2024, 02:26:33 AM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #69 on: October 01, 2024, 07:20:36 PM »
Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle.


DM---“it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.”

DM---“As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.”

DM---“You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]”


Huh?  What he states is there is “possibly” another print under the wood by the trigger housing. Two sets of prints on the barrel? Where does that even come from? It is not even possible to interpret Lt. Day’s statement in that way.

“Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
 
As you can see, LT Day never ever stated that there were two sets of prints on the barrel. They were never two sets of prints on the barrel. Not Ever. Lt Day thought the FBI should work to develop “Possibly” a print by the trigger guard or magazine housing. Lt Day was not sure it would even be a good print. Lt Day thought the prints were of LHO’s fingers. He photographed them instead of dust them with powder. The photographs of the prints are CE 721 and CE 722.

Here is the possible source of your delusion and confusion:

Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.

Once again you have managed to misinterpret the testimony of the people involved and have managed to create your own evidence. Mistakes and misinterpretations do occur but you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Instead of just reading an answer from the witness, try and understand it in the context of how it is asked.

 

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

 

 
DM---“You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.”

DM---“You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.

BUT IT DOESN'T.”

DM---“You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
But. unlike the gullible morons who swallow down everything the WC has to say, for some of us the "no idea" nonsense isn't good enough.”

DM---“You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.”

DM---"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".

DM- “Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?”



Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever.

But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari

Actually, I think even the most witless of people can figure out how dust could be missing from a surface of a smooth metal barrel. I was trying to be civil and not point it out.
 
Also, “all over the gun” would include the barrel. Stombaugh kind of shoots your whole storyline down by stating it was all over the woodstock. Hoover’s letter authenticating Oswald’s print on the barrel also removes any doubt as to authenticity of the palmprint.

To summarize your post: The palmprint is authentic courtesy of the FBI lab, the gun did have fingerprint powder all over it, and there is only one palmprint on the barrel. You are trying to make some point here but what is it again? 

But as it turns out the finger print powder did not disappear. Just ask Stombaugh.

"Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle."

 ;D Really Jack??
So now I have to hold your hand and guide you through a basic English lesson?
The lengths you Nutters will go to, to misrepresent the evidence, is amazing.

Firstly, the plural of "scenario" is not "scenari". It is "scenarios"
Secondly, let's have a look at your childish attempt to subvert Day's testimony:

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints" - This is a reference to the MC being sent to the FBI.
"Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there," - the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle. Day stated that he felt the part of the print that was left on the underside of the barrel of the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of getting an identification. He is insistent that this partial print "still remained" on the rifle when he handed the rifle over to Drain.
"and, too, there was another print," - this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. This is a definitive statement. There is no 'maybe', 'perhaps' or 'possibly'. Day is stating unequivocally that there were two sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. There can be no doubt of that.
"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." - here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Unlike the blatant falsehood you are trying to peddle, Day DOES NOT use the word "possibly" in relation to whether or not there was a second print on the rifle. He is absolutely certain there was a second print. He uses the word "possibly" when he is describing the position of this second print on the barrel of the rifle.

Your childish attempt to twist the meaning of Day's testimony represents the depths you Nutters are willing to go.
It is just another sad example of a Nutter in denial.
The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI. Elsewhere he has stated there was also fingerprint powder on the rifle where he had tried to lift the palmprint, and that it was still on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both sets of prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared from the underside of the barrel of the rifle. It was as if nobody had even looked at this area of the rifle.
Where did all this evidence go?
As far as Nutters are concerned, they have "no idea" and think that's a good enough answer.
It is not.
Even members of the Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint.
There is something incredibly suspicious going on here but Nutters can just turn a blind eye.

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

"But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari"


Yet again, I have to hold your hand and guide you through the basics of this case  ::)
It's getting really boring.

Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged:

"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."


Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.

Do you understand now, Jack?
Do you now understand how fingerprint powder can be both missing and all over the rifle at the same time.
Do you now understand that both scenari are possible?
Even though there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle there was none on the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip.
There were no prints, even though Day claimed there were two sets of prints there.
It is obvious that Day lied about processing this part of the rifle.
And that is why your heroes, the Warren Commision, questioned the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.

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

"Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever."

I only ask the following question because I'm interested to see what lunacy you come up with next.
How, exactly, does Hoover's unofficial letter tell us what happened to the two sets of prints and fingerprint powder that disappeared from the underside of the rifle between Day and Latona?

You have already admitted that you have "no idea" what happened.
If the answer is in Hoover's unofficial letter, as you insist it is, then how come you have "no idea"?

Now, I already know the answers to these questions but I'm interested to see how you try to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2024, 04:17:20 AM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2024, 05:15:39 AM »
"Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle."

 ;D Really Jack??
So now I have to hold your hand and guide you through a basic English lesson?
The lengths you Nutters will go to, to misrepresent the evidence, is amazing.

Firstly, the plural of "scenario" is not "scenari". It is "scenarios"
Secondly, let's have a look at your childish attempt to subvert Day's testimony:

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints" - This is a reference to the MC being sent to the FBI.
"Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there," - the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle. Day stated that he felt the part of the print that was left on the underside of the barrel of the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of getting an identification. He is insistent that this partial print "still remained" on the rifle when he handed the rifle over to Drain.
"and, too, there was another print," - this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. This is a definitive statement. There is no 'maybe', 'perhaps' or 'possibly'. Day is stating unequivocally that there were two sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. There can be no doubt of that.
"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." - here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Unlike the blatant falsehood you are trying to peddle, Day DOES NOT use the word "possibly" in relation to whether or not there was a second print on the rifle. He is absolutely certain there was a second print. He uses the word "possibly" when he is describing the position of this second print on the barrel of the rifle.

Your childish attempt to twist the meaning of Day's testimony represents the depths you Nutters are willing to go.
It is just another sad example of a Nutter in denial.
The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI. Elsewhere he has stated there was also fingerprint powder on the rifle where he had tried to lift the palmprint, and that it was still on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both sets of prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared from the underside of the barrel of the rifle. It was as if nobody had even looked at this area of the rifle.
Where did all this evidence go?
As far as Nutters are concerned, they have "no idea" and think that's a good enough answer.
It is not.
Even members of the Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint.
There is something incredibly suspicious going on here but Nutters can just turn a blind eye.

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

"But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari"


Yet again, I have to hold your hand and guide you through the basics of this case  ::)
It's getting really boring.

Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged:

"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."


Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.

Do you understand now, Jack?
Do you now understand how fingerprint powder can be both missing and all over the rifle at the same time.
Do you now understand that both scenari are possible?
Even though there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle there was none on the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip.
There were no prints, even though Day claimed there were two sets of prints there.
It is obvious that Day lied about processing this part of the rifle.
And that is why your heroes, the Warren Commision, questioned the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.

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

"Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever."

I only ask the following question because I'm interested to see what lunacy you come up with next.
How, exactly, does Hoover's unofficial letter tell us what happened to the two sets of prints and fingerprint powder that disappeared from the underside of the rifle between Day and Latona?

You have already admitted that you have "no idea" what happened.
If the answer is in Hoover's unofficial letter, as you insist it is, then how come you have "no idea"?

Now, I already know the answers to these questions but I'm interested to see how you try to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”

This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?

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

Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?


LT Day---"and, too, there was another print," 

DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.


Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!

Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?

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

DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”

Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
 

 

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2024, 03:49:45 PM »
DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”

This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?

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

Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?


LT Day---"and, too, there was another print," 

DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.


Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!

Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?

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

DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”

Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”

The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Some of the things you post are so stupid its difficult to know if you're serious.
When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2024, 04:07:10 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2024, 03:49:45 PM »