RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

You are jumping to conclusions. You do that all the time.

 

Is that an opinion or a comment?
Rather than weakly flap around with your baseless accusations, why not explain how I have jumped to a conclusion.
If you disagree with my interpretation of what Drain is saying then please enlighten us as to your own interpretation.

[Charles Collins]

Is that an opinion or a comment?
Rather than weakly flap around with your baseless accusations, why not explain how I have jumped to a conclusion.
If you disagree with my interpretation of what Drain is saying then please enlighten us as to your own interpretation.

Is that an opinion or a comment?

Fact.

[Dan O'meara]

Is that an opinion or a comment?

Fact.

Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.

Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.

That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.

[Charles Collins]

Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.

Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.

That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.

You can believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t mean it happened that way. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible. If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

[Richard Smith]

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.  What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances?  Oswald was dead.  There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.  The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.  They had charged Oswald with the crimes.  But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print.  It is ludicrous.  Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.  Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print.  He was a "good ole boy."  So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President.  It's absurd.  There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print.  None.

[Martin Weidmann]

You can believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t mean it happened that way. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible. If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible.

Let me guess... all these "very knowledgeable people" just happen to be LNs, right?

But even if they are not, the fact that they have stayed out of the discussion is absolutely meaningless. All you've got is a pathetic appeal to authority in reverse....   

If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

And there it is again, the LNs favorite tool; the attempt to shift the burden of proof. Never mind that the "cop said so" evidence lacks credibility or authenticity.....

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.  What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances?  Oswald was dead.  There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.  The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.  They had charged Oswald with the crimes.  But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print.  It is ludicrous.  Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.  Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print.  He was a "good ole boy."  So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President.  It's absurd.  There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print.  None.

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.

And still the WC (Rankin and Lieberer) questioned his story and wondered if the palmprint could have come from another source.... Go figure

There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.

True, but they still needed to convince the American public that Oswald was the lone gunman, as per the Katzenbach memo. Even for a charade investigation you still need "evidence" to wrap the case around Oswald, right?

But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print. 

Are we supposed to believe that a piece of evidence that lacks all credibility, has no chain of custody and can't be authenticated (because Day himself refused to give more details to the WC), is nevertheless valid evidence just because a cop said so?

Just one question; how many innocent people have been in prison due to police and prosecutorial conduct in Dallas alone? But in this particular case Wade and the DPD would never do such a thing, right?

[John Iacoletti]

The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing. 

LOL. They had no physical evidence placing that rifle in Oswald’s hands. Hence the need for the magic partial palmprint.

Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.

You mean like your baseless outlandish conclusion that Oswald could have gone down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard because “he did”?