The Palmprint

[Jack Nessan]

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?

“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?”

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not. 

If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.

The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber. 

When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing. 

 

Lt Day ...”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"

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

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.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.

[Charles Collins]

For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:

[Jack Nessan]

For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:

Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.

[Charles Collins]

Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.

I looked at that website. It appears that they are selling that schematic (pdf download) for $1.50 in case anyone is interested. Personally, I don’t need it (to understand how the parts fit together).

[Dan O'meara]

“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?”

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not. 

If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.

The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber. 

When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing. 

 

Lt Day ...”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"

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

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.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Like all Nutters, you would rather post utter nonsense than admit you're wrong.
A few posts ago you were insisting Day never mentioned two sets of prints. After giving you an English lesson you now accept he did state there were two sets of prints but now you want to argue about where on the rifle this second print was! You really are a joke.
Time for yet another English lesson.
When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!
Do you understand this very simple point?
There is another point you have tried to ignore.
Day stated this second print was "under the wood". This means that the second print was UNDER THE WOOD.
There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
When he states that the print was NEAR the trigger housing, he is simply referring to which end of the barrel the print was located - not the end near the muzzle, the end near the trigger housing.

If you disagree with this then state exactly where on the rifle this second print is. If it's not on the trigger housing then where is it?
[not even you are stupid enough to try and argue the second print is on the trigger housing.]

Not that it means anything.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea how the two sets of prints and all the black fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the rifle by the time it reached Latona.
The answer is simple - there was never any prints or powder on the barrel of the rifle, or the barrel was wiped completely clean.
Day stated that he told Fritz, Curry and Drain about the palmprint. There is absolutely no evidence of this but plenty of evidence that he never told any of them about the print.
Day lied about not having enough time to identify the print.
The FBI did not receive the palmprint until the 29th - a full week after the assassination.
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in Day's account of the palmprint that all disappear when it is realised he is lying.

Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.

[Jack Nessan]

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Like all Nutters, you would rather post utter nonsense than admit you're wrong.
A few posts ago you were insisting Day never mentioned two sets of prints. After giving you an English lesson you now accept he did state there were two sets of prints but now you want to argue about where on the rifle this second print was! You really are a joke.
Time for yet another English lesson.
When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!
Do you understand this very simple point?
There is another point you have tried to ignore.
Day stated this second print was "under the wood". This means that the second print was UNDER THE WOOD.
There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
When he states that the print was NEAR the trigger housing, he is simply referring to which end of the barrel the print was located - not the end near the muzzle, the end near the trigger housing.

If you disagree with this then state exactly where on the rifle this second print is. If it's not on the trigger housing then where is it?
[not even you are stupid enough to try and argue the second print is on the trigger housing.]

Not that it means anything.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea how the two sets of prints and all the black fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the rifle by the time it reached Latona.
The answer is simple - there was never any prints or powder on the barrel of the rifle, or the barrel was wiped completely clean.
Day stated that he told Fritz, Curry and Drain about the palmprint. There is absolutely no evidence of this but plenty of evidence that he never told any of them about the print.
Day lied about not having enough time to identify the print.
The FBI did not receive the palmprint until the 29th - a full week after the assassination.
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in Day's account of the palmprint that all disappear when it is realised he is lying.

Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.

It is more like English is your third language. You have managed to have completely prove the opposite and do not seem to realize it. Your claims of two prints on the barrel have become a distant memory. You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there. You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again? 


The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?

Begging for someone to please believe you, that there is a conspiracy is not the same as actually proving it and with zero evidence of any kind to boot. You believe there is the appearance of impropriety just by your reasoning alone, so that means there has to be a conspiracy?

DM---Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.

This is not proof of a conspiracy. LHO's rifle being found on the 6th floor and being matched to the bullet and fragments is proof of LHO's guilt not a conspiracy. If not LHO, who and why?



 

[Dan O'meara]

It is more like English is your third language. You have managed to have completely prove the opposite and do not seem to realize it. Your claims of two prints on the barrel have become a distant memory. You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there. You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again? 


The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?

Begging for someone to please believe you, that there is a conspiracy is not the same as actually proving it and with zero evidence of any kind to boot. You believe there is the appearance of impropriety just by your reasoning alone, so that means there has to be a conspiracy?

DM---Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.

This is not proof of a conspiracy. LHO's rifle being found on the 6th floor and being matched to the bullet and fragments is proof of LHO's guilt not a conspiracy. If not LHO, who and why?



 

 
Wow!!
Even for you, this insane rant of a post is next level.
I'll deal with the craziest part of it first, then try to pick my way through this swamp of Nutter confusion and delusion.

You posted:
"You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?"
In the post you are responding to. I wrote this:
"When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!"
I wrote that the second print was not on the trigger housing. I wrote it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I even put the word "NOT" in bold print.
Yet you have somehow interpreted this as me "admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel"!!

How have you interpreted what I have written this crazy way?
How have you interpreted it as the exact opposite of what I actually posted??
How confused are you?
Can't you understand basic English?
I also posted this:
"There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
I specifically stated that, as far as the second print is concerned, Day was talking about it being on the barrel. It's totally obvious what I'm saying but you seem to be so confused that you understand it as the opposite of what's being said!

Then we have this gem:
"You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there."

I have already patiently explained this 'mystery' to you but you just don't get it.
Rather than explain it all again I will simply reproduce my earlier post:

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.

Stombaugh testified that the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder.
But when the rifle was disassembled the underside of the barrel, which had been covered with wood, was clean.
There was no fingerprint powder and no prints.
I can't state this any more simply.
The rifle was covered with fingerprint powder, but not the part of the barrel that had been covered by the wooden stock.
Do you understand what is being said here?
Do you understand that there is no mystery or contradiction?

The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?

Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it.
More importantly, it doesn't explain where the print and the fingerprint powder that Day insisted was on the barrel of the rifle when sent it to the FBI, disappeared to.
And that is the question that is being asked.
How did the print and fingerprint powder disappear?
You have already stated that you don't know. It is the only honest thing you have posted on this thread.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea what happened to the print and powder.
Like all Nutters, you don't think there is anything wrong with this. You don't think there's anything mysterious or suspicious about it.
Like all Nutters, you don't do any thinking for yourself.
Your opinions are provided for you and are based on the investigation into the assassination.
But what if the investigation was corrupt?
Would that cause you to have second thoughts? [ as if]

[Jack Nessan]

Wow!!
Even for you, this insane rant of a post is next level.
I'll deal with the craziest part of it first, then try to pick my way through this swamp of Nutter confusion and delusion.

You posted:
"You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?"
In the post you are responding to. I wrote this:
"When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!"
I wrote that the second print was not on the trigger housing. I wrote it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I even put the word "NOT" in bold print.
Yet you have somehow interpreted this as me "admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel"!!

How have you interpreted what I have written this crazy way?
How have you interpreted it as the exact opposite of what I actually posted??
How confused are you?
Can't you understand basic English?
I also posted this:
"There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
I specifically stated that, as far as the second print is concerned, Day was talking about it being on the barrel. It's totally obvious what I'm saying but you seem to be so confused that you understand it as the opposite of what's being said!

Then we have this gem:
"You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there."

I have already patiently explained this 'mystery' to you but you just don't get it.
Rather than explain it all again I will simply reproduce my earlier post:
Stombaugh testified that the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder.
But when the rifle was disassembled the underside of the barrel, which had been covered with wood, was clean.
There was no fingerprint powder and no prints.
I can't state this any more simply.
The rifle was covered with fingerprint powder, but not the part of the barrel that had been covered by the wooden stock.
Do you understand what is being said here?
Do you understand that there is no mystery or contradiction?

The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?

Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it.
More importantly, it doesn't explain where the print and the fingerprint powder that Day insisted was on the barrel of the rifle when sent it to the FBI, disappeared to.
And that is the question that is being asked.
How did the print and fingerprint powder disappear?
You have already stated that you don't know. It is the only honest thing you have posted on this thread.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea what happened to the print and powder.
Like all Nutters, you don't think there is anything wrong with this. You don't think there's anything mysterious or suspicious about it.
Like all Nutters, you don't do any thinking for yourself.
Your opinions are provided for you and are based on the investigation into the assassination.
But what if the investigation was corrupt?
Would that cause you to have second thoughts? [ as if]

The Gospel and an indisputable fact according to Dan:

Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!

DM---”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”


The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you. 

If he did not disassemble the rifle, how would he have known it was thoroughly dusted with powder?

Maybe the only one you should be questioning is Mr. Stombaugh. He verified the rifle had been thoroughly dusted with fingerprint powder. For some reason known only to you, you seem to think Mr Stombaugh performed some half-baked examination of the rifle. Probably because you need it to be that way to continue with this ever-evolving discombobulated conspiracy rant.

We are making progress though. Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated. Maybe look at the diagram of the carcano that will help you fill in the missing information in your posts about the trigger housing.

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

Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano. If you are denying that you should stop referring to Lt Day as having lifted it.