RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[David Von Pein]

Your desperation is obvious.

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

[John Iacoletti]

One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here.

Uh, Dave, this memo is talking about a print he didn’t lift.

The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here.

And by “discussed”, you just mean trotting out the same old lame excuse, “Odum must have forgotten”.

[John Iacoletti]

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

“Proper context” defined as agreeing with Dave’s assumptions.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.

Do you even know what the words "proper context" mean.

Out of four things I have mentioned you only reply to two and neither have any merit. As John pointed out, Day said that he had not lifted a print (which he claimed was there, but the FBI could not find it) and the Odum "excuse" is just silly.

All you have shown here is your cherry picking of the evidence you like and what you don't like is what Landis has said. It is pathetic....

[David Von Pein]

...what you don't like is what Landis has said.

Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

Says the guy who has discredited himself a long time ago as a die hard propagandist who has no interest in the truth, whatsoever.

Case in point; VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all.
A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.

[David Von Pein]

VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all. A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.

The Pinkston memo that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle. I've had many CTers tell me that Lt. Day never found a print on that gun at all. And, they'll say, it was only many days later that the FBI suddenly "discovered" an Oswald print on the underside of the gun.

Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.

Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct? Answer: Commission Exhibit No. 637. [EDIT -- Also see this follow-up post.]

------------------------------------

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"

LIEUTENANT J.C. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."

MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"

MR. DAY -- "It has the name "J.C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."

(Also see 4 H 260 and 4 H 261.)

------------------------------------

The Pinkston memo would be more accurate if it said that Lt. Day had not had time to FULLY LIFT the print.

CTers, of course, will still insist I'm full of crap and Day never saw or lifted ANY Oswald print, even though CE637 (which is DATED 11-22-63 and SIGNED by J.C. Day) is right there in evidence for the CTers to see. (But it's probably phony evidence and Lt. Day was merely lying through his teeth in his testimony on page 261 of volume 4, the CTers will say.)

And 'round and 'round we go until doomsday.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s2000-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg