You can't explain it either! Here are your own words:
"Why Lt Day took it upon himself to write a different release datum on a copy of the document is the only thing I can not explain."
Yet you still accept it as valid! You choose to ignore the glaring falsification of this document. I don't.
I can explain and easily accept the original of the document, which shows that Howlett submitted curtain rods for fingerprinting testing on 03/15/64 and collected again on 03/24/64. That's a valid document.
The only thing I can not explain is why Ltd Day would take it upon himself to use a copy of the original document to falsely provide a collection date of 03/26/64.
But it is rather telling that you accuse the Secret Service and the DPD of falsifying a document, without even being able to explain why they would do that!
"Frazier said that it was possible that this was the case,"
That's from the report about Frazier's polygraph. You choose to ignore this.
This is what I actually had to say about my impressions of the polygraph:
"To me this doesn't seem like someone answering 'yes' or 'no'.
"It's possible but I don't think so", sounds a bit more conversational to me.
You will know more about these things than I do but I'm not sure how you get a definitive response when the person being tested changes their mind half way through an answer.
It's just the impression I get from this small fraction of the reported polygraph for which there is no record. Mustn't have seemed important enough to keep a record of it.
It doesn't seem like a real polygraph test to me but what I know about it comes from the movies. Not real life.
Does it seem real to you?"
Does it seem real to you Martin?
If it does, what is it that convinces you it's real?
What you fail to understand is that the FD 302 reports what Lewis, the polygraph operator, told the FBI agent. It's not a verbatim account of the polygraph. So, here is what most likely happened'
Frazier is shown the bag and asked if this is the bag he saw Oswald carry. Frazier answers "No".
Do you really think that Day doesn't want to know more? Of course he does, so after the actual polygraph session, Frazier is asked why he said "no" and Frazier explains it. That explanation is what Lewis told Drain.
As Frazier told me himself that he was in fact polygraphed I have no reason to assume that he wasn't.
The problem seems to be that the actual polygraph print out is not part of the JFK collection at the National Archives and nobody knows where it is. But if that means to you that it didn't happen and isn't real, then you must also consider the documents "proving" that Oswald order a rifle at Klein's are not real either, since the microfilm where they came from is also not in the collection and thus missing.
If you make enough assumptions and ignore/dismiss factual evidence, you will always arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at. It's classic Martin!
The only difference between you and me is that I don't make assumptions and you do nothing else but speculate.