Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Walt Cakebread]

Not all at once. Just did an experiment. Grasped a 5/8" tube as if it were holding a heavy metal barrel. Then eased the grip by lifting the thumb and allowing the palm to relax. All of the fingers still held onto the tube but the tube had rolled on the palm. This added more palm imprinting than the initial grasping.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Using the 2" as base.....you have indicated that the print spans about 1 1/2 inches.....   Since the circumference of the metal barrel is 2.2 inches and just a small fraction larger than 2 inches..... Ten the so called "palm print" would have wrapped 3/4 of the way around the metal barrel...But Day said that he saw a small portion of the print on the side of the barrel and that prompted him to remove the wooden foregrip. Then he saw the print on the bottom of the barrel.....  Day's description covers about 1/3 of the barrel or .....about 5/8".....     

5/8" is no where near the 1 1/2 inch that you are proffering.....

[Charles Collins]

If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?

If you look at the shape of the palm print relative to the length of the tape (or the lift if you prefer) it appears to me that LHO was holding the barrel of the rifle at an angle similar to the natural way that I would pick it up. Here is a photo of a 5/8” diameter wooden dowel in my hand for an illustration:



As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the way around the barrel to span the width of the tape. We are just eyeballing the images to get a rough idea of the width of the tape. I am sure there is a more scientific way to measure these things. The tape might be closer to 1-1/2” wide than 2” wide. But I don’t believe that the reason for your theory of 1” wide is accurate.

[Walt Cakebread]

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.




(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

You need to put a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long.... Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?

[Walt Cakebread]

If you look at the shape of the palm print relative to the length of the tape (or the lift if you prefer) it appears to me that LHO was holding the barrel of the rifle at an angle similar to the natural way that I would pick it up. Here is a photo of a 5/8” diameter wooden dowel in my hand for an illustration:



As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the way around the barrel to span the width of the tape. We are just eyeballing the images to get a rough idea of the width of the tape. I am sure there is a more scientific way to measure these things. The tape might be closer to 1-1/2” wide than 2” wide. But I don’t believe that the reason for your theory of 1” wide is accurate.

As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the


Looking at the photo that you've posted, I'd say the heel of your hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8 " dowel.....

1/3 of 2 =  .66 "   or about 5/8 of an inch......   Which means the tape is about 1" wide......

[Jerry Organ]

You need to but a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long....

Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?

Evidence mounts are just as likely to be custom sized. I don't see where you're getting that evidence has to be on "index cards" and standard-sized paper/card-stock.

[Charles Collins]

As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the


Looking at the photo that you've posted, I'd say the heel of your hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8 " dowel.....

1/3 of 2 =  .66 "   or about 5/8 of an inch......   Which means the tape is about 1" wide......

Here's a photo that is more on axis with the rod. It is close to 1/2 the circumference.



However, what you still are not taking into account is the angle of the tape and barrel relative to this wrap. Think of a candy cane or barber pole and their stripes as the go halfway around the circumference at an angle. Measure the stripe at two locations that are opposite from each other (but one will be further along the length). Because of the additional distance along the length, the stripe will measure longer than a stripe that is perpendicular to the length of the barrel.

[Jerry Organ]

Awesome to watch the Nutters twist and turn.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

But Day claimed there were still VISIBLE TRACES of the print:

Must have faded away, or Latona thought they were "fragmentary". The print was second-hand (ahem) by time the FBI received the rifle.

Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Mr. LATONA: This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.

[John Mytton]

Awesome to watch the Nutters twist and turn.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

But Day claimed there were still VISIBLE TRACES of the print:

Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Sorry Otto, but there is irrefutable proof that the random pitting and imperfections that Day took from Oswald's rifle on the 22nd is a perfect match to a later imprint taken by the FBI and thus conclusively proves that Day's print taken on the 22nd  shows beyond all doubt that Oswald touched C2766's barrel! See Otto, when you rely on Science and advanced forensic techniques you can't go wrong!

When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on. And another match is the relative sizes of each of the imperfections which independently dramatically increases the odds.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.





JohnM