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." 
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.
