It's a false premise that the print was faked, but I have already explained the implications even if that were the case. At worst, it would mean that for some inexplicable reason that the DPD decided to frame a guilty person for a crime after he was dead, and the authorities were already satisfied he had committed the crime based on the totality of the other evidence. It would raise zero doubt as to whether Oswald owned this particular rifle since there is overwhelming evidence EVEN in the absence of the print to link him, and him alone, to the rifle found on the 6th floor. The rifle used to assassinate JFK.
It's a false premise that the print was faked
It shouldn't surprise me how stupid you can be...but it still does.
The idea that there was no palmprint on the rifle when Day examined it comes from your heroes - the Warren Commission.
You love the Warren Commission so much. You suck down everything they have to say without question.
But here we have your heroes questioning whether or not Day really lifted the palmprint from the rifle.
It must be so confusing for you when the people you love so much argue among themselves.
An FBI document dated August 28th, 1964, reveals that: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel
or whether it was obtained from some other source."
The Warren Commission were wondering if the palmprint originated from "some other source".
They were questioning whether or not the palmprint really came from the barrel of the rifle.
In effect, they were questioning whether the palmprint was real or fake.
A memo sent from Liebler to Rankin on 28th August stated: "Griffin and Slawson and I raise questions covering the palmprint which Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the underside of the barrel of the K-1 rifle on November 22, 1963...We suggest that additional investigation be conducted to determine with greater certainty
that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified . The only evidence we presently have on that print is the testimony of Lt. Day himself."
The whole Liebler memo lays out a multitude of issues regarding the legitimacy of the palmprint.
And that's not all.
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” [page 267]: "We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle"
The Warren Commission was aware of a report in JULY '64 that there was no palmprint on the rifle!!If there was no palmprint on the rifle then where did it come from?
The "false premise", as you call it, originated with your heroes - the Warren Commission.
How do you explain that?
There are so many massive problems with the palmprint but one stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Day testified that he lifted the palmprint from the barrel of the rifle, but left so much of the print on the rifle he felt that what was left on the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of making an identification. It must be remembered that a certain identification of Oswald was made from the partial print that Day allegedly lifted, so whatever he left on the barrel of the rifle must have been even better than what he lifted.
Also, let's not forget that Day testified that there was not one, BUT TWO sets of prints on the barrel of the rifle!
Also, let's not forget that Day stated there was fingerprint powder still on the barrel of the rifle from where he made the lift.
And this is not surprising. Below is a pic of the actual lift. The arrows highlight that the tape did not pick up all the fingerprint powder, so this powder must have been left on the barrel.
Two sets of prints and a good portion of black fingerprint powder were on the barrel of the rifle when Day handed it over to the FBI.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, there was not a speck of either set of prints or fingerprint powder to be seen on the barrel of the rifle.
There's no point asking YOU where the prints and powder went as you don't have a clue what's going on.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT AS FAR AS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONCERNED.
Because you're a zealot you can just skirt over this kind of thing but any rational person has to stop and ask questions.
At worst, it would mean that for some inexplicable reason that the DPD decided to frame a guilty person for a crime after he was dead,
Where would we be without the usual dose of Richard "logic".
If the print was faked, this was done BEFORE the DPD was aware there was any other evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
It was done BEFORE Oswald was dead.
Your argument - that the DPD wouldn't falsify evidence linking Oswald to the rifle because they already had loads of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle - is the the usual mental nonsense, because they had ZERO evidence linking Oswald to the rifle when the print was faked.
Do you understand how stupid your argument is?
I doubt it.
