3 x 5 Index Card that is item # 14 On the List

[Walt Cakebread]

Nope. You don't understand how a print is projected onto a curved surface and how complicated photogrammetry is. Distortion does not mean "out of focus". Distortion is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, it's the projection of an image from a curved to a flat surface. That is what I showed you. The distortion at the outer edges are irrelevant. They are nearest to the flat surface so their distortion is minimal.

I don't think you are understanding me.... I'm merely saying that a man's palm would make good contact at the highest point of a curved surface...and there would be les contact the further you go away from that high point .....ans consequently the print left by the contact would be good at the canter but it would fade away at the outside of the rounded surface.   This is elementary....Put a glass in the freezer and when it is cold enough to form frost on the outside...place your hand on the side of the tumbler.    Your hand will make good contact at the highest point on the glass but it will not come in contact with a point the is 90 degrees from that high point.

[Jack Trojan]

I don't think you are understanding me.... I'm merely saying that a man's palm would make good contact at the highest point of a curved surface...and there would be les contact the further you go away from that high point .....ans consequently the print left by the contact would be good at the canter but it would fade away at the outside of the rounded surface.   This is elementary....Put a glass in the freezer and when it is cold enough to form frost on the outside...place your hand on the side of the tumbler.    Your hand will make good contact at the highest point on the glass but it will not come in contact with a point the is 90 degrees from that high point.

Walt, I am understanding you fine. The print does fade away at the edges as you describe where it loses contact with the rifle. The 1" tape shows that, otherwise, we would see more dermal ridges at the tape's edges, but we don't. This is consistent with the print being lifted from the rifle barrel. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print, which was taken on a flat surface. Trust me, you can't make any conclusions based on these images. Not unless you actually have the gumption to try and match them up. Anything less than that is a waste of time.

Here is something YOU can uniquely do. You own a MC, right? If so, you can duplicate most of these experiments and you can answer most of your questions to support your claims. You are in the driver's seat here. Wipe down your MC, disassemble it, put it in a bag, take it out and reassemble it, take a few shots, ditch it, then put on some gloves (like the DPD should have done) and test it for prints. I'll bet you get more than 0.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, I am understanding you fine. The print does fade away at the edges as you describe where it loses contact with the rifle. The 1" tape shows that, otherwise, we would see more dermal ridges at the tape's edges, but we don't. This is consistent with the print being lifted from the rifle barrel. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print, which was taken on a flat surface. Trust me, you can't make any conclusions based on these images. Not unless you actually have the gumption to try and match them up. Anything less than that is a waste of time.

Here is something YOU can uniquely do. You own a MC, right? If so, you can duplicate most of these experiments and you can answer most of your questions to support your claims. You are in the driver's seat here. Wipe down your MC, disassemble it, put it in a bag, take it out and reassemble it, take a few shots, ditch it, then put on some gloves (like the DPD should have done) and test it for prints. I'll bet you get more than 0.

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print,

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....The print was on a flat surface ....They took a photo of it and then without advancing the film they took a photo of the 3X5 white card  creating a double exposure.....and presto the print was on the card....   We have never seen the actual card....all we've been shown is photos of the card.

[Jack Trojan]

You seem to be implying that the print was lifted from a flat surface because it seems to match Oswald's print,

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....The print was on a flat surface ....They took a photo of it and then without advancing the film they took a photo of the 3X5 white card  creating a double exposure.....and presto the print was on the card....   We have never seen the actual card....all we've been shown is photos of the card.

Walt, what I am saying is that you can't tell what kind of surface the tape was applied to with these images. EOS.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, what I am saying is that you can't tell what kind of surface the tape was applied to with these images. EOS.

Fair enough....But I'm still of the opinion that the print should appear strong at the middle, and fade away on each side of the middle, if it had been lifted from a sharply curving ( round) surface like the 5/8 inch diameter barrel of a carcano.

[Jack Trojan]

Fair enough....But I'm still of the opinion that the print should appear strong at the middle, and fade away on each side of the middle, if it had been lifted from a sharply curving ( round) surface like the 5/8 inch diameter barrel of a carcano.

Why don't you find out 1st hand and post your results?

[Walt Cakebread]

Why don't you find out 1st hand and post your results?

What would that prove?.....    Those who are honest would accept it, but those who are not honest would reject it.....  Only I would know the absolute truth.

IOW.... It would be a fools errand ......

Look at CE 1304....  It is a photo of the carcano disassembled ....Notice that there is a bayonet lug surrounding the barrel six inches back from the muzzle of the rifle.

This is the place that Lt Day claimed that he found the palm print ....  I was thinking of accommodating you by  trying to duplicate Lt Day's lift from the carcano.  As you can see in CE 1304 there is no round barrel to deposit a print on at that place the barrel.  The bayonet lug surrounds the barrel....