JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Walt Cakebread on September 29, 2019, 08:01:16 PM
-
On page 260 of Volume 24 of the WC hearings there is a altered copy of evidence inventory list that accompanied the evidence that was being turned over to the FBI at midnight, 11 / 22 /63 . Item # 14( counting from the top down) on that list says....
Quote.... 1 Partial palm print " off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" on rifle # C 2766. .... unquote
Since the evidence inventory list is not dated, there is a dispute about WHEN this list was created.....
FBI Agent James Hosty in his Book stated that he and another agent photographed the evidence and typed up a list of the evidence that was being released to the FBI that evening. Commonsense ( and Legality) dictates that both parties ( The FBI and the DPD) would require a list of the evidence.
Item # 14 on the list is the so called "palm Print" ..... And that means the palm print story told by Detective Day is nothing but a damned lie.... He didn't discover that "palm print" on the metal barrel after disassembling the rifle....nor did he fail to tell the FBI about that print. He found that smudge that he imagined might be a palm print on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle while he was checking it for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where it had been carefully hidden.
-
We already know that the magic palmprint didn’t accompany the evidence released on 11/22. Drain knew nothing about it.
-
We already know that the magic palmprint didn’t accompany the evidence released on 11/22. Drain knew nothing about it.
Drain was a key conspirator..... He initialed the 3 X 5 card when he received it on the evening of 11 / 22 /63
-
On page 260 of Volume 24 of the WC hearings there is a altered copy of evidence inventory list that accompanied the evidence that was being turned over to the FBI at midnight, 11 / 22 /63 . Item # 14( counting from the top down) on that list says....
Quote.... 1 Partial palm print " off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" on rifle # C 2766. .... unquote
Since the evidence inventory list is not dated, there is a dispute about WHEN this list was created.....
FBI Agent James Hosty in his Book stated that he and another agent photographed the evidence and typed up a list of the evidence that was being released to the FBI that evening. Commonsense ( and Legality) dictates that both parties ( The FBI and the DPD) would require a list of the evidence.
Item # 14 on the list is the so called "palm Print" ..... And that means the palm print story told by Detective day is nothing but a damned lie.... He didn't discover that "palm print" on the metal barrel after disassembling the rifle....nor did he fail to tell the FBI about that print. He found that smudge that he imagined might be a palm print on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle while he was checking it for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where it had been carefully hidden.
Iacoletti asked....How does it’s being altered tell you anything about when the first one was written?
Let's get the two lists posted so everybody can see what's being discussed....
-
Yes, let's.
-
Yes, let's.
I don't have the ability or equipment to post the evidence lists.....
-
Iacoletti asked....How does it’s being altered tell you anything about when the first one was written?
Let's get the two lists posted so everybody can see what's being discussed....
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list,
Yes, that seems to be apparent.....
Even a ten year old would understand that the DPD would not have released a single piece of evidence unless they documented the fact that they released it to the FBI. Surely you won't argue that point, will you john?
So they must have documented the evidence (and many of the police officers and the FBI acknowledged that the DPD did in fact turn the evidence over to them at midnight 11/22/63.) They photographed and listed the evidence.... But they didn't know some of the information that appeared on the list for 11/26/63 so naturally that info was not listed on the original list. Is this too difficult for you Johnny?
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list,
When placing the two documents ( Evidence list "A" and Evidence list "B" )side by side it's very obvious that the document that is printed on page 260 of Vol 24, which is Document "B" is a photo copy of Document "A".
-
Even a ten year old would understand that the DPD would not have released a single piece of evidence unless they documented the fact that they released it to the FBI. Surely you won't argue that point, will you john?
That immaterial. If that particular list described the evidence released that night then Drain would have gotten the magic partial palmprint that night. He didn’t. It was mailed to Washington days later.
-
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list,
Yes, that seems to be apparent.....
Even a ten year old would understand that the DPD would not have released a single piece of evidence unless they documented the fact that they released it to the FBI. Surely you won't argue that point, will you john?
So they must have documented the evidence (and many of the police officers and the FBI acknowledged that the DPD did in fact turn the evidence over to them at midnight 11/22/63.) They photographed and listed the evidence.... But they didn't know some of the information that appeared on the list for 11/26/63 so naturally that info was not listed on the original list. Is this too difficult for you Johnny?
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list,
When placing the two documents ( Evidence list "A" and Evidence list "B" )side by side it's very obvious that the document that is printed on page 260 of Vol 24, which is Document "B" is a photo copy of Document "A".
Referring to Document "A" ( the original evidence inventory list) there are several items that indicate that it was typed up on 11 /22/63.
A) Item number number 9 is listed as--- quote...."6.5 spent rounds (2) " ...Unquote
It's a fact that on the evening of 11/ 22 / 63 only TWO spent shells were turned over to the FBI.
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
There are several other items in document "A" that indicate that it was created on 11 / 22 /63....
We'll examine them one at a time......
-
That immaterial. If that particular list described the evidence released that night then Drain would have gotten the magic partial palmprint that night. He didn’t. It was mailed to Washington days later.
If that particular list described the evidence released that night then Drain would have gotten the magic partial palmprint that night.
Thank you....You've just admitted that if item #14 on the list ( The unaltered original ) described the evidence released then Drain would have received the "partial palmprint" ....Well it DOES DESCRIBE the evidence.......Here's how item # 14 is described on the original list....
Quote * 1 Partial palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C 2766... Unquote.
You'll notice that the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" C2766 are in quotation marks....That means the typist quoted the words that were on the 3 x 5 index card.
You may also notice that there is a tiny asterisk preceding the entry..... The tiny asterisk has great significance.......Because at the bottom of the document the meaning of that asterisk is revealed...The note at the bottom of the document says...Taken from 6th floor, 411Elm by Lt day and Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab, City Hall.
Clearly, Lt. Day did NOT discover the so called "palmprint" in the Crime Lab after disassembling the rifle.....According to the original evidence inventory list he discovered the "partial palm print on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
PS.... Vince Drain initialed the card when he received it into evidence on 11 /22 63
-
Thank you....You've just admitted that if item #14 on the list ( The unaltered original ) described the evidence released then Drain would have received the "partial palmprint"
Except he didn’t. Therefore that undated list does not describe the evidence that was released on 11/22.
PS.... Vince Drain initialed the card when he received it into evidence on 11 /22 63
Bull.
-
Except he didn’t. Therefore that undated list does not describe the evidence that was released on 11/22.
Bull.
that undated list does not describe the evidence that was released on 11/22.
.Here's how item # 14 is described on the original list....
Quote * 1 Partial palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C 2766... Unquote.
You'll notice that the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" C2766 are in quotation marks....That means the typist quoted the words that were on the 3 x 5 index card.
You may also notice that there is a tiny asterisk preceding the entry..... The tiny asterisk has great significance.......Because at the bottom of the document the meaning of that asterisk is revealed...The note at the bottom of the document says...Taken from 6th floor, 411Elm by Lt day and Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab, City Hall.
-
That immaterial. If that particular list described the evidence released that night then Drain would have gotten the magic partial palmprint that night. He didn’t. It was mailed to Washington days later.
FBI finger print expert, Sabastian Latona received the so called palm print on the 3 X 5 card in the Crime Lab in Washington DC on Saturday morning. He examined the smudge and filed a report that said it was useless for identification purposes.
-
FBI finger print expert, Sabastian Latona received the so called palm print on the 3 X 5 card in the Crime Lab in Washington DC on Saturday morning. He examined the smudge and filed a report that said it was useless for identification purposes.
That’s just flat out wrong.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.
. . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
. . .
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.
-
That’s just flat out wrong.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.
. . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
. . .
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.
Why do you present the testimony from the Warren Commission? Anybody with average intelligence can understand that the Warren Commission was simply LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee" and their agenda was to convince the public that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald ( Boooo Hissss) was the real assassin.....
Here again is factual evidence that the FBI had to so called "palm print" on the evening of 11 /22 63....
Referring to Document "A" ( the original evidence inventory list) there are several items that indicate that it was typed up on 11 /22/63.
A) Item number number 9 on the list --- quote...."6.5 spent rounds (2) " ...Unquote
It's a fact that on the evening of 11/ 22 / 63 only TWO spent shells were turned over to the FBI.
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
-
Why do you present the testimony from the Warren Commission? Anybody with average intelligence can understand that the Warren Commission was simply LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee" and their agenda was to convince the public that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald ( Boooo Hissss) was the real assassin.....
Here again is factual evidence that the FBI had to so called "palm print" on the evening of 11 /22 63....
Referring to Document "A" ( the original evidence inventory list) there are several items that indicate that it was typed up on 11 /22/63.
A) Item number number 9 on the list --- quote...."6.5 spent rounds (2) " ...Unquote
It's a fact that on the evening of 11/ 22 / 63 only TWO spent shells were turned over to the FBI.
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
Here's how item # 14 is described on the original list....
Quote * 1 Partial palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C 2766... Unquote.
You'll notice that the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" C2766 are in quotation marks....That means the typist quoted the words that were on the 3 x 5 index card. You may also notice that there is a tiny asterisk preceding the entry..... The tiny asterisk has great significance.......Because at the bottom of the document the meaning of that asterisk is revealed...The note at the bottom of the document says...Taken from 6th floor, 411Elm by Lt day and Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab, City Hall.
Another indication that the original list ("A") was typed up on the evening of 11 / 22 / 63 is the first item on the list....which says Quote...
1 Italian make 6.5 rifle, serial #c2766, blue steel, wood stock, brown leather sling with 4 x 18 Ordinance Optic Inc. Hollywood California, 0 10 Japan telescoptic sight. Found by Dept. Sheriff Weitzman on 6th floor, 411 Elm, 5 ' from west wall and 8 ' from stairway. ...unquote
On the evening of the ambush murder the police didn't know much about the rifle....some referred to it as a "mauser".... But on Saturday morning they learned that the rifle was commonly known as a "Carcano carbine", and that addendum was added to the photocopy of the original evidence inventory list ( "A")
The altered photocopy, evidence list "B" has item number one listed as.... quote...
1 Italian make 6.5 rifle, serial #c2766, blue steel, wood stock, brown leather sling with 4 x 18 Ordinance Optic Inc. Hollywood California, 0 10 Japan telescoptic sight. Carcano carbine Found by Dept. Sheriff Weitzman on 6th floor, 411 Elm, 5 ' from west wall and 8 ' from stairway. ...unquote
So at the time the original list was typed up on the evening of 11 /22/63 they didn't know that the rifle was a Carcano....but when they learned that it was a "Carcano carbine" they added that to the photo copy of the original list.
So now we have TWO factual indicators that the DPD released the so called "palm print off underside of gun barrel " to the FBI at midnight 11 /22/63.
-
Except he didn’t. Therefore that undated list does not describe the evidence that was released on 11/22.
Bull.
Thank you....You've just admitted that if item #14 on the list ( The unaltered original ) described the evidence released then Drain would have received the "partial palmprint"
Except he didn’t. Therefore that undated list does not describe the evidence that was released on 11/22.
Huh???what kinda cockeyed logic is this?? Drain denied receiving the so called palmprint on 11/22 /63 and since he denied that he received the 3 X 5 index card with the print lift on it , that negates the DESCRIPTION of item #14 on the evidence list???
-
Why do you present the testimony from the Warren Commission?
Because your completely made up story about when Latona got the magic palmprint has no evidence to support it.
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
Nope. Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27.
-
Huh???what kinda cockeyed logic is this?? Drain denied receiving the so called palmprint on 11/22 /63 and since he denied that he received the 3 X 5 index card with the print lift on it , that negates the DESCRIPTION of item #14 on the evidence list???
It doesn’t negate it, but it tells you that this list did not accompany the evidence handed over on 11/22, because the magic partial palmprint wasn’t handed over then (if it even existed then).
-
It doesn’t negate it, but it tells you that this list did not accompany the evidence handed over on 11/22, because the magic partial palmprint wasn’t handed over then (if it even existed then).
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
Nope. Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27.
John....On the evening of 11 / 22 /63 ...The DPD claimed that they had only TWO spent shells...... And that's what they released to the FBI. Item # 9 on the evidence list ( The original , Document "A" ) says quote.... " 6.5 spent rounds (2) " ... unquote.
How can you deny what is typed right there on the list that also includes the partial palm print..."off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip c 2766"
-
This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63.
Nope. Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27.
John....On the evening of 11 / 22 /63 ...The DPD claimed that they had only TWO spent shells...... And that's what they released to the FBI. Item # 9 on the evidence list ( The original , Document "A" ) says quote.... " 6.5 spent rounds (2) " ... unquote.
How can you deny what is typed right there on the list that also includes the partial palm print..."off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip c 2766"
Walt you are wasting everyone's time here. If you suspect the DPD, SS, FBI, CIA and WH were in on the conspiracy then you have to chuck out everything on record that comes from them, especially when it`s not dated. That 3x5" card was a fraud. So why do you defend its authenticity? If the conspirators control the narrative then you cannot take anything they claim on face value. So why do you?
-
Walt you are wasting everyone's time here. If you suspect the DPD, SS, FBI, CIA and WH were in on the conspiracy then you have to chuck out everything on record that comes from them, especially when it`s not dated. That 3x5" card was a fraud. So why do you defend its authenticity? If the conspirators control the narrative then you cannot take anything they claim on face value. So why do you?
If you suspect the DPD, SS, FBI, CIA and WH were in on the conspiracy then you have to chuck out everything on record that comes from them,
Yes that's true.... And especially the crap that the Warren Commission dumped on us.
If I'm wasting your time just ignore my posts....
The 3 X 5 card was listed on the original evidence inventory list.... That 3 X 5 card was created by Lt Day in the TSBD that afternoon when Day discovered the smudge that he imagined might be a palm print. He realized that the wood of the foregrip would absorb the print rapidly so he decided to lift it with cellophane tape. Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted the smudge and placed the tape on a 3 X 5 white card , and then scrawled the pertinent information on that 3 X 5 card....Day scrawled.... "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip c2766" ... He also dated the card 11/22/63 and signed his name JC Day.
-
If you suspect the DPD, SS, FBI, CIA and WH were in on the conspiracy then you have to chuck out everything on record that comes from them,
Yes that's true.... And especially the crap that the Warren Commission dumped on us.
If I'm wasting your time just ignore my posts....
The 3 X 5 card was listed on the original evidence inventory list.... That 3 X 5 card was created by Lt Day in the TSBD that afternoon when Day discovered the smudge that he imagined might be a palm print. He realized that the wood of the foregrip would absorb the print rapidly so he decided to lift it with cellophane tape. Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted the smudge and placed the tape on a 3 X 5 white card , and then scrawled the pertinent information on that 3 X 5 card....Day scrawled.... "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip c2766" ... He also dated the card 11/22/63 and signed his name JC Day.
Paul Groody, the mortician who received Oswald's body after his autopsy, claimed that in the early morning of Monday, November 25th, "agents" visited his funeral home and asked to be alone with Oswald's body. After they left, he had to remove fingerprint ink from Oswald's fingers and hands. That was 3 days after Day dated the card. I assume they already had Oswald's prints on file so what were they doing lifting prints from a dead body? Where are those prints, who do you believe and why?
-
Paul Groody, the mortician who received Oswald's body after his autopsy, claimed that in the early morning of Monday, November 25th, "agents" visited his funeral home and asked to be alone with Oswald's body. After they left, he had to remove fingerprint ink from Oswald's fingers and hands. That was 3 days after Day dated the card. I assume they already had Oswald's prints on file so what were they doing lifting prints from a dead body? Where are those prints, who do you believe and why?
I don't give a RA what somebody said..... I can SEE the evidence with my own eyes.... Get your head out and perhaps you also will see for yourself.
The Palm print ( smudge) was discovered by Lt Day shortly after he pulled the rifle from beneath the wooden pallet. Tom Alyea saw him lift what he imagined to be a palm print and place the lift on the 3 X 5 card. That card is on the evidence inventory list for the evening of 11 /22 63.
-
I don't give a RA what somebody said..... I can SEE the evidence with my own eyes.... Get your head out and perhaps you also will see for yourself.
The Palm print ( smudge) was discovered by Lt Day shortly after he pulled the rifle from beneath the wooden pallet. Tom Alyea saw him lift what he imagined to be a palm print and place the lift on the 3 X 5 card. That card is on the evidence inventory list for the evening of 11 /22 63.
If you say so. But how do you know that was Oswald's palm print and they didn't replace it with his post-mortem print?
-
If you say so. But how do you know that was Oswald's palm print and they didn't replace it with his post-mortem print?
IMO .....They simply made up the BS about the print being Lee Oswald's palm print.....And Yes... I'm well aware that FBI print expert Latona testified that the print was Lee Oswald's...But Latona had a career with the FBI...and his retirement was in the hands of J. Edgar Hoover.
Until you get past the idea that the authorities were the good guys ...You're just spinning your wheels, and going nowhere.....
-
Alyea later claimed that Day was lifting prints (plural) and putting them on cards. If Day lifted the magic partial palmprint in the TSBD he would have said so. He claimed he lifted it later that night at the station. There’s no evidence that he did either. Just because 11/22/63 is scrawled on the card doesn’t mean that it was created then. It was scrawled on there to support a particular narrative. The fact remains that nobody else knew about the lift for days. An undated evidence list proves nothing.
-
Alyea later claimed that Day was lifting prints (plural) and putting them on cards. If Day lifted the magic partial palmprint in the TSBD he would have said so. He claimed he lifted it later that night at the station. There’s no evidence that he did either. Just because 11/22/63 is scrawled on the card doesn’t mean that it was created then. It was scrawled on there to support a particular narrative. The fact remains that nobody else knew about the lift for days. An undated evidence list proves nothing.
Yes, you're right, Alyea did use the plural... But I assume that Alyea saw Lt Day putting scotch tape on the magazine / trigger guard and therefore used the plural.
If Day lifted the magic partial palmprint in the TSBD he would have said so.
There is a asterisk preceding item number 14 on the evidence inventory list ....The meaning of that asterisk is revealed in a note at the bottom of the evidence list....That Note says ...quote..."Taken from 6th floor, 411 Elm, by Lt Day and Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab , City Hall."
-
Because your completely made up story about when Latona got the magic palmprint has no evidence to support it.
Nope. Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27.
Walt wrote:...."This listing of just TWO spent shells alone, and by itself, indicates that this document ( evidence inventory list) was created at a time when there were only TWO spent shells in evidence..... And that time was the evening of 11 / 22/ 63."
John argued;... Nope. Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27.
Yes that's correct John.....so you should have wrote... Yes, you're right, there were only two spent shells turned over to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63 and Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27
-
Yes that's correct John.....so you should have wrote... Yes, you're right, there were only two spent shells turned over to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63 and Fritz didn’t hand over the alleged third shell until 11/27
But you were arguing that the first evidence list had to be written on 11/22 because that was the only day that there were only 2 shells in evidence. But that’s wrong. There were only 2 shells in evidence between 11/22 and 11/27.
-
But you were arguing that the first evidence list had to be written on 11/22 because that was the only day that there were only 2 shells in evidence. But that’s wrong. There were only 2 shells in evidence between 11/22 and 11/27.
But the only day between 11/21 and 11/27 in which evidence was turned over that required an inventory was 11 /22...... According to the altered photo copy evidence was released to the FBI on 11-22-63 and 11-26-63 .
I'm sorry I can't direct you to the FBI photos of the spent rifle shells that were taken on 11/22/63.... But perhaps you've seen then....The photos show two spent shells on a desk with a placard that identifies the shells and the date.
-
But you were arguing that the first evidence list had to be written on 11/22 because that was the only day that there were only 2 shells in evidence. But that’s wrong. There were only 2 shells in evidence between 11/22 and 11/27.
John, I specifically stated that item number 9 on the list, ( the TWO spent shells ) was just one of several indicators that indicate that the original evidence list "A" was typed up on the evening of 11 / 22 /63.
So let's take another item .....Item number one on the list "A" simply describes the rifle as an "Italian Rifle " .... On the evening of 11/22 that's all they knew about the rifle....but by Saturday Morning they learned that the rifle was called a "Carcano carbine" ....and that information is added to the altered photo copy "B"....
and here's another ....on the original list "A" item number 6 is the S&W revolver.....The entry says .....1 .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel.
But on the altered copy"B" of the original list that number 6 entry says... .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel, S&W, Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles ser. #510210.
rel to FBi agent 1-22-63 and again 11-26-63. NOTICE.....[b]rel to FBI agent 1-22-63[/b] And sure enough the pistol IS listed on the evidence list of the evidence that was released to the FBI on 11 / 22 / 63....
Is this too difficult for you to understand, John ?
-
Yes, I’ve seen the photo.
The problem with this argument is that the evidence list in question says nothing about being a list of evidence being turned over to the FBI. It’s just a list of items labeled “evidence”.
-
Yes, I’ve seen the photo.
The problem with this argument is that the evidence list in question says nothing about being a list of evidence being turned over to the FBI. It’s just a list of items labeled “evidence”.
The altered list "B" says...
1 .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel,S&W Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles ser.# 510210 .Rel to FBI agent 11-22-63 and again 11-26-63.
Released to an FBI agent on 11-22-63 ..... The revolver was item number six on the list .....and the 3 X 5 index card was item number 14.
-
That just helps make my point. If the whole thing was a list of evidence released to the FBI at the same time, there would be no need to make that annotation specifically on the “pistol” (which was actually a revolver).
-
That just helps make my point. If the whole thing was a list of evidence released to the FBI at the same time, there would be no need to make that annotation specifically on the “pistol” (which was actually a revolver).
Many folks refer to any hand gun as a "pistol".... So that point doesn't amount to much.....And the fact remains that the pistol was one of the items on the original evidence list "A" and the altered list "B" says it was released to the FBI along with the other items on the list on 11 - 22 -63.
-
It’s just a list of evidence. It could have been written at any time.
-
It’s just a list of evidence. It could have been written at any time.
No, it could not have been written at any time..... It was written before the evidence was turned over to the FBI and there were photographs taken to accompany the list.
One of those photos shows item #1 on the list.....The Italian rifle.... The hand written placard behind the rifle says....
11 -22-63---Dallas- Made in Italy-- 1940 --6.5 CAL--- C2766---Scope 4x18 coated ordinance optics ---Hollywood California
and in the lower right hand corner the name- J. Day.
On 11-22- 63 they didn't know that the rifle was a Carcano carbine...... So they simply listed it as Italian make 6.5 rifle and that's basically what was written on the placard ...however the placard listed the date 1940, whereas the evidence list didn't.
John, WHY? are you so insistent that the original evidence list wasn't typed up on 11 / 22 /63?
Surely you can read and understand the footnote on that evidence list.... The footnote clearly says that the items with the asterisk preceding the entry were----- "Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm , by Lt Day and Detective Studebaker and taken to crime Lab City Hall. " and an asterisk precedes the Partial palm print entry....
Item number five on the evidence list is the "Homemade paper bag resembling a gun case "
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand to you an object which I will describe for the record as being apparently a brown, homemade-type of paper bag, and which I will also describe for the record as having been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building near the window, the easternmost window, on the south face of that floor.
I ask you whether you are familiar with this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, I am. This is a piece of brown wrapping paper that we have referred to as a brown paper bag, which was referred to me for purposes of processing for latent prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you examined that for latent prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 626?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 626 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
-
No, it could not have been written at any time..... It was written before the evidence was turned over to the FBI and there were photographs taken to accompany the list.
That’s what you keep claiming, but there’s no evidence for it. It just says “EVIDENCE”
John, WHY? are you so insistent that the original evidence list wasn't typed up on 11 / 22 /63?
Because not only is there no evidence for that assertion, but the magic partial palmprint wasn’t turned over on 11/22. Neither Drain or Latona knew anything about it.
Surely you can read and understand the footnote on that evidence list.... The footnote clearly says that the items with the asterisk preceding the entry were----- "Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm , by Lt Day and Detective Studebaker and taken to crime Lab City Hall. " and an asterisk precedes the Partial palm print entry....
That tells you nothing about when the list was written. And if Day really did his lifts at the TSBD, why wouldn’t he have said so? It wouldn’t have hurt his story.
-
That’s what you keep claiming, but there’s no evidence for it. It just says “EVIDENCE”
Because not only is there no evidence for that assertion, but the magic partial palmprint wasn’t turned over on 11/22. Neither Drain or Latona knew anything about it.
That tells you nothing about when the list was written. And if Day really did his lifts at the TSDB, why wouldn’t he have said so? It wouldn’t have hurt his story.
Day wouldn't have said so because.....The so called palm print was just an unidentifiable smudge.... and they desperately needed the villain Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald's print on that rifle because Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Oswald's prints on the gun. ( Wade was lying through his teeth)
My God! John...Can't you open your eyes and SEE.... that the so called palm print story is a ridiculous lie. Simply LOOK at the exhibit CE 639 .... That smudge that the experts swore was Lee's Palm print was very obviously lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.... It was NOT lifted from a 5/8 " diameter metal barrel.... A 5/8 inch diameter barrel is not large enough to contain a man's palm print.
-
Day wouldn't have said so because.....The so called palm print was just an unidentifiable smudge.... and they desperately needed the villain Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald's print on that rifle because Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Oswald's prints on the gun. ( Wade was lying through his teeth)
My God! John...Can't you open your eyes and SEE.... that the so called palm print story is a ridiculous lie. Simply LOOK at the exhibit CE 639 .... That smudge that the experts swore was Lee's Palm print was very obviously lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.... It was NOT lifted from a 5/8 " diameter metal barrel.... A 5/8 inch diameter barrel is not large enough to contain a man's palm print.
I agree that the magic partial palmprint is extremely dodgy. Even more so because it wasn’t turned over with the other evidence on 11/22.
-
I agree that the magic partial palmprint is extremely dodgy. Even more so because it wasn’t turned over with the other evidence on 11/22.
The ..."Partial palm print off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" was listed as item #14 on the evidence inventory list. The S&W revolver was item # 6 on that list and we know that it was released to the FBI on 11/22/63 ....The "Homemade paper bag resembling a gun case was item #5 on that list and FBI agent Sabastian Latona testified that he received that paper bag along with the other evidence on 11/23/ 63.
Why do you insist on denying the facts?..... The facts indicate that the story about Lt Day disassembling the rifle and finding Lee's palm print on the metal barrel is nothing but a damned lie. There is ample evidence that the "print " ( smudge) was discovered by Lt. Day on the WOODEN foregrip of the Carcano while he was examining the rifle for finger prints just minutes after he pulled the rifle from BENEATH the wooden pallet.
-
No, the facts indicate that the magic partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card, and that this is no “inventory list”.
-
No, the facts indicate that the magic partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card, and that this is no “inventory list”.
Then how do you explain the evidence on that list being examined in the FBI Crime Lab in Wash. DC on 11/23/63?
-
Then how do you explain the evidence on that list being examined in the FBI Crime Lab in Wash. DC on 11/23/63?
Some of it was and some of it wasn’t.
-
Some of it was and some of it wasn’t.
Some of it was..... How do you explain the FBI having that evidence in their possession if they didn't sign a document that listed each item that they had taken from the Dallas Police?
-
Some of it was..... How do you explain the FBI having that evidence in their possession if they didn't sign a document that listed each item that they had taken from the Dallas Police?
Walt,
Which FBI officer signed that document?
Wasn't one of the major issues that whatever Drain took to Washington on 11/23/63 wasn't correctly documented, leaving the possibility that what was returned by the FBI to Dallas the next day actually wasn't what Drain was given?
-
Walt,
Which FBI officer signed that document?
Wasn't one of the major issues that whatever Drain took to Washington on 11/23/63 wasn't correctly documented, leaving the possibility that what was returned by the FBI to Dallas the next day actually wasn't what Drain was given?
Martin, Clearly you recognize and don't deny that evidence was released to the FBI at mid-night on 11/22/63..... There is ample substantiation that the evidence was listed and photographed prior to releasing it to FBI agent Vince Drain. Drain was flown on a US Air Force Jet to Washington with the evidence. There is also ample evidence that the evidence was received in the FBI Crime Lab on Saturday morning ..... The list that was typed up to document the evidence being released listed the "partial palm print off underside of gun barrel C 2766" as item number 14.
-
Some of it was..... How do you explain the FBI having that evidence in their possession if they didn't sign a document that listed each item that they had taken from the Dallas Police?
Perhaps they did, but that particular document ain’t it.
-
Martin, Clearly you recognize and don't deny that evidence was released to the FBI at mid-night on 11/22/63..... There is ample substantiation that the evidence was listed and photographed prior to releasing it to FBI agent Vince Drain. Drain was flown on a US Air Force Jet to Washington with the evidence. There is also ample evidence that the evidence was received in the FBI Crime Lab on Saturday morning ..... The list that was typed up to document the evidence being released listed the "partial palm print off underside of gun barrel C 2766" as item number 14.
That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?
And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?
-
Perhaps they did, but that particular document ain’t it.
That document ( Evidence inventory list "A" ) is not evidence gathered on November 22 , 1963.....It is a list of the evidence that was gathered and released to the FBI at mid-night.
-
That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?
And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?
Hi Martin, I'm very happy that a reasonable person has shown interest in this subject....( The 3 X 5 card which had the so called "palm print" scotch tape lift, stuck to it )
There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
Yes, you're right that's simply very evident....and without any doubt. And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI. Thus an evidence inventory list that listed the items was typed up, and photos of that evidence were taken. The photos had placards placed near the item of evidence that was being photographed. There are photos of TWO ( only TWO) spent shells with a placard that identifies them and the date 11/22/ 63 ....and item number 9 on the list is --- quote--- " 6.5 spent rounds (2)" ---unquote
At the time the evidence was released to the FBI ( midnight 11/ 22 /63 ) that's all there were....TWO spent 6.5 shells . (on a later date, the liars added a third shell but at midnight there were only two.
So it's obvious that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22/63. And item number 14 on the list says...quote...* 1 Partial palm print " Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip " ( quotation marks are from the evidence list) on rifle C2766 ...unquote
That exact quote is the words that Lt Day scribbled on the card to identify the lift and where that lift had been found.
The asterisk preceding the entry indicates that this piece of evidence was Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm, by Lt Day AND Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab , City Hall.
Day lied ( as D.A. Henry Wade had instructed) that he had found the so called "palm print" on the metal barrel when he had the rifle disassembled. Day said that he disassembled the rifle and found the print and lifted it from the metal barrel to keep it from being damagded or destroyed in the handling of the rifle..... ( which is utter ridiculous, because if that print could have been deposited on a small 5 /8 inch diameter barrel it would have been beneath the wooden foregrip and well protected from being damaged .... Self evident by the fact that the print would have been there and not damaged in the handling of the rifle prior to it's alleged discovery)
At any rate ... The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .
-
Hi Martin, I'm very happy that a reasonable person has shown interest in this subject....( The 3 X 5 card which had the so called "palm print" scotch tape lift, stuck to it )
There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
Yes, you're right that's simply very evident....and without any doubt. And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI. Thus evidence an inventory list that listed the items was typed up, and photos of that evidence were taken. The photos had placards placed near the item of evidence that was being photographed. There are photos of TWO ( only TWO) spent shells with a placard that identifies them and the date 11/22/ 63 ....and item number 9 on the list is --- quote--- " 6.5 spent rounds (2)" ---unquote
At the time the evidence was released to the FBI ( midnight 11/ 22 /63 ) that's all there were....TWO spent 6.5 shells . (on a later date, the liars added a third shell but at midnight there were only two.
So it's obvious that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22/63. And item number 14 on the list says...quote...* 1 Partial palm print " Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip " ( quotation marks are from the evidence list) on rifle C2766 ...unquote
That exact quote is the words that Lt Day scribbled on the card to identify the lift and where that lift had been found.
The asterisk preceding the entry indicates that this piece of evidence was Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm, by Lt Day AND Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab , City Hall.
Day lied ( as D.A. Henry Wade had instructed) that he had found the so called "palm print" on the metal barrel when he had the rifle disassembled. Day said that he disassembled the rifle and found the print and lifted it from the metal barrel to keep it from being damagded or destroyed in the handling of the rifle..... ( which is utter ridiculous, because if that print could have been deposited on a small 5 /8 inch diameter barrel it would have been beneath the wooden foregrip and well protected from being damaged .... Self evident by the fact that the print would have been there and not damaged in the handling of the rifle prior to it's alleged discovery)
At any rate ... The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .
And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.
Under normal circumstances that would indeed be true, but in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures. When it happened, Oswald was still alive, and this transfer of evidence would have created a massive chain of custody problem had the case ever gone to court. This IMO is also the reason why the evidence was returned to the DPD the next day and why it was formally collected from them again a few days later. I think a case can be made for not documenting such a surreptitious transfer.
But, if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document? And what happened to a similar document that - if you are correct - must have existed for the return of the evidence on the 24th?
At any rate ... The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .
But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?
-
And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.
Under normal circumstances that would indeed be true, but in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures. When it happened, Oswald was still alive, and this transfer of evidence would have created a massive chain of custody problem had the case ever gone to court. This IMO is also the reason why the evidence was returned to the DPD the next day and why it was formally collected from them again a few days later. I think a case can be made for not documenting such a surreptitious transfer.
But, if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document? And what happened to a similar document that - if you are correct - must have existed for the return of the evidence on the 24th?
At any rate ... The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .
But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?
if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document?
Actually, FBI agent Vince Drain's initials VED are right there on the 3X5 index card...and so is the initials of Captain G.M. Doughty (GMD) and the date of 11-22-63
Drain was the agent representing the FBI and receiving the evidence and Dougherty was the DPD Captain who represented the DPD in releasing the evidence.
But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?
Oh Boy...Sigh... I've posted this info many times... And I can't believe I need to explain it to you. You're one of the more intelligent and discerning members of this CF.
Henry Wade told reporters that they had the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald ( booooo Hissss) by his jewels.... because they had found his prints on the rifle.
Wade was lying through his teeth....They had found NO identifying prints on the rifle.....( At least that's what the FBI reported.) But since Wade had opened his big mouth in an attempt to convict Lee Oswald in the eyes of the public, The conspirators in Dallas ( Wade and his band of pirates) desperately needed proof for Henry Wades bold lie....And of course there was no such proof ..... But Henry Wade who was one of J.Edgar Hoover's "EXTRA SPECIAL" special agents ( ie; Undercover agent reporting directly to Hoover) so Hoover ordered Chief Curry to produce the proof that Detective Day had found the "palm Print" on that was on the 3 X 5 card on the rifle but had neglected to tell the FBI about finding the print. Thus the lie was created.....And many willfully blind folks still believe the BS.
-
That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?
And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?
The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?
They didn't discover the spy camera until after they had released the evidence to the FBI.... They found it when they started searching Lee Oswald's Sea bags... And they had no legal right to search his personal luggage....They placed a placard by the stuff that had been in his sea bag that said the items were " Vountarily Given (to the) DALLAS PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald Paine residence Irving Tex 11-22-63 "
Mrs Paine had no legal right to give any of Lee Oswald's personal belongings to anybody....And Marina wouldn't have understood anything about an American citizen's rights regarding illegal search and seizure....
-
Walt, you are looking for contradictions between records and actions but you can't trust any of it. Like Trump, they flooded the zone with so much BS that you can't pin down the smoking gun.
IMO, the smoking gun is the way the evidence was handled. For example:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg)
Are you spombleprofglidnoctobunstin' me? Why was EVERYONE handling crucial crime scene evidence without gloves??? Several people including top dog Fritz handled the shell casings with their bare hands. Fritz even staged the crime scene by casually tossing the hulls onto the floor for a photo-op. Would any other agency have handled all the evidence like the DPD, let alone while investigating the murder of the POTUS in the crime of the century?
The DPD's handling of the evidence (including the BYPs) is but one of the smoking guns.
-
The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?
They didn't discover the spy camera until after they had released the evidence to the FBI.... They found it when they started searching Lee Oswald's Sea bags... And they had no legal right to search his personal luggage....They placed a placard by the stuff that had been in his sea bag that said the items were " Vountarily Given (to the) DALLAS PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald Paine residence Irving Tex 11-22-63 "
Mrs Paine had no legal right to give any of Lee Oswald's personal belongings to anybody....And Marina wouldn't have understood anything about an American citizen's rights regarding illegal search and seizure....
IMO, the Minox camera took the money shot CE-133A and CE-133BCDEF... was taken with the piss-poor Imperial Reflex. You can see the difference between the 2 cameras in the following graphic:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
This is another smoking gun. These 2 pics were obviously not taken with the same camera. You might want to ask Marina about that.
-
And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.
Under normal circumstances that would indeed be true, but in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures. When it happened, Oswald was still alive, and this transfer of evidence would have created a massive chain of custody problem had the case ever gone to court. This IMO is also the reason why the evidence was returned to the DPD the next day and why it was formally collected from them again a few days later. I think a case can be made for not documenting such a surreptitious transfer.
But, if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document? And what happened to a similar document that - if you are correct - must have existed for the return of the evidence on the 24th?
At any rate ... The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .
But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?
in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures.
Why do you believe that the transfer of evidence was... " surreptitious"? I'd certainly agree that it was probably an out of ordinary transfer of evidence. In fact I doubt that all of the evidence in a case is ever transferred to the FBI.... It is routine for a PD to ask the FBI to exam a single piece of evidence ...but I doubt that there has ever been a case in which the FBI took over the investigation and demanded all of the evidence.
But I don't believe there was anything secret about the transfer.....
-
in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures.
Why do you believe that the transfer of evidence was... " surreptitious"? I'd certainly agree that it was probably an out of ordinary transfer of evidence. In fact I doubt that all of the evidence in a case is ever transferred to the FBI.... It is routine for a PD to ask the FBI to exam a single piece of evidence ...but I doubt that there has ever been a case in which the FBI took over the investigation and demanded all of the evidence.
But I don't believe there was anything secret about the transfer.....
Why do you believe that the transfer of evidence was... " surreptitious"?
An undocumented, or badly documented, transfer of crucial evidence within less that 12 hours after the murder, with that evidence being returned within 24 hours is not surreptitious? C'mon Walt, you know better than that!
But I don't believe there was anything secret about the transfer.....
Fair enough, but how do you explain that there is no receipt for all the evidence turned over to the FBI signed by Drain or any other FBI officer? And why is there no similar document for the return of the evidence, a day later? To safeguard the chain of custody both documents would be required, yet they don't exist.
-
Why do you believe that the transfer of evidence was... " surreptitious"?
An undocumented, or badly documented, transfer of crucial evidence within less that 12 hours after the murder, with that evidence being returned within 24 hours is not surreptitious? C'mon Walt, you know better than that!
But I don't believe there was anything secret about the transfer.....
Fair enough, but how do you explain that there is no receipt for all the evidence turned over to the FBI signed by Drain or any other FBI officer? And why is there no similar document for the return of the evidence, a day later? To safeguard the chain of custody both documents would be required, yet they don't exist.
how do you explain that there is no receipt for all the evidence turned over to the FBI
This is very easy for me to answer.... The conspirators were the authorities... Any evidence they wanted to destroy... they destroyed.
-
Walt, you are looking for contradictions between records and actions but you can't trust any of it. Like Trump, they flooded the zone with so much BS that you can't pin down the smoking gun.
IMO, the smoking gun is the way the evidence was handled. For example:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg)
Are you spombleprofglidnoctobunstin' me? Why was EVERYONE handling crucial crime scene evidence without gloves??? Several people including top dog Fritz handled the shell casings with their bare hands. Fritz even staged the crime scene by casually tossing the hulls onto the floor for a photo-op. Would any other agency have handled all the evidence like the DPD, let alone while investigating the murder of the POTUS in the crime of the century?
The DPD's handling of the evidence (including the BYPs) is but one of the smoking guns.
Can anybody in this forum enlarge the muzzle area of the rifle in this photo ?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg)
I'm particularly interested in the position of the slots in the screws that secure the bayonet lug and the front barrel band.....( three screws)
I'd bet the farm that these screws were never turned between the time this photo was taken at 6:17pm and 11/23/63 when the FBI received the rifle in the Crime Lab in Washington. Lt Day swore that he disassembled the rifle shortly before the FBI took possession of the rifle. Lt Day could not have disassembled the rifle unless he took those screws out. I'd bet the farm that those screws are in the same positions as seen in this 6:17 pm photo and photos of the rifle in the FBI crime lab.
-
Can anybody in this forum enlarge the muzzle area of the rifle in this photo ?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg)
I'm particularly interested in the position of the slots in the screws that secure the bayonet lug and the front barrel band.....( three screws)
I'd bet the farm that these screws were never turned between the time this photo was taken at 6:17pm and 11/23/63 when the FBI received the rifle in the Crime Lab in Washington. Lt Day swore that he disassembled the rifle shortly before the FBI took possession of the rifle. Lt Day could not have disassembled the rifle unless he took those screws out. I'd bet the farm that those screws are in the same positions as seen in this 6:17 pm photo and photos of the rifle in the FBI crime lab.
This any help, Walt?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4YxFvFPY/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4YxFvFPY)
-
This any help, Walt?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4YxFvFPY/MC-jfk-weapon.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4YxFvFPY)
No , But thank you for your effort.... I hope someone who is a crackerjack whiz kid at enlarging a portion of a photo, can enlarge the front part of the rifle so the screw slots are visible.
-
No , But thank you for your effort.... I hope someone who is a crackerjack whiz kid at enlarging a portion of a photo, can enlarge the front part of the rifle so the screw slots are visible.
Not enough resolution. Google for pics of the MC at max res (pixel width x height), download, open it in your image viewer and magnify (+) the screws. If you can see the angle of the slots then press the Print Screen button on your keyboard, open the MS Paint program, paste in the screen shot (Ctrl-v), drag the pasted image of the screws to the upper-left section of your screen, Resize the resolution of your image to isolate the screws (hgt x wid), save the image as a JPG file (mc_screws.jpg) to your Images folder, email the file to a buddy who will post it on this site, or do it yourself.
I doubt there are any hi-res images out there to pull this off, but it's not a bad idea, Walt. Good luck!
-
Corrected evidence list, now 3 shells
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
Note there's a page 2.
Hi Otto ....Please note that the link that you have posted takes you to the ALTERED copy of the evidence list ( Document "B")
A person can only gain a good grasp of my point by comparing this altered copy to the original ( Document "A") from which this Document "B" was created..... You need both the original evidence inventory list, and the altered copy of that original to gain a clear understanding that the original list was created on 11/22/63 .... And the most important item on that original list is item number 14. Which is the 3 X 5 index card that all the lying authorities swore was not turned over to the FBI that night.
-
Corrected evidence list, now 3 shells
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
Note there's a page 2.
I can't be certain.....because the page appears to be blank at first glance....But it appears that page two is actually the back side of page one......and the writing on the opposite side is faintly visible.
-
I was referring to the actual "(Page 2)", the back of both pages have been scanned giving a total of 4 pages.
What I didn't notice were the punched holes at the top of each page along with the outline of the original(?) punched holes. I vaguely remember the DP made a number of booklet like binders with copies of evidence; all affidavits were included, this is one of them,
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337752/
Note page numbering at the bottom, the "(Page 2)" was a later addition. I suggest the pages you're discussing were for internal use and not intended as any kind of receipt. I even think the WC had one made too.
Do you believe that evidence can leave the jurisdiction of a PD without any record ?
Commonsense dictates that both the party releasing the evidence and the party receiving the evidence would require documentation.
-
I was referring to the actual "(Page 2)", the back of both pages have been scanned giving a total of 4 pages.
What I didn't notice were the punched holes at the top of each page along with the outline of the original(?) punched holes. I vaguely remember the DP made a number of booklet like binders with copies of evidence; all affidavits were included, this is one of them,
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337752/
Note page numbering at the bottom, the "(Page 2)" was a later addition. I suggest the pages you're discussing were for internal use and not intended as any kind of receipt. I even think the WC had one made too.
I suggest the pages you're discussing were for internal use and not intended as any kind of receipt. I even think the WC had one made too.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Otto..... Does it make any difference why the Evidence inventory list was typed up?
Whether for internal use of for legal records ...the records of the Warren Commission show that the DP released the evidence to the FBI at midnight....( how could the FBI Crime Lab in Washington receive the evidence if the Dallas PD didn't release it??)
See Page 260 of Volume 24 for proof that the WC had a copy of the list....
-
Do you believe that evidence can leave the jurisdiction of a PD without any record ?
Commonsense dictates that both the party releasing the evidence and the party receiving the evidence would require documentation.
I completely agree, Walt, but where is the document signed by Drain for the evidence he took to Washington and (I've asked this before) the document for the return of the evidence the next day?
I know you said that the conspirators destroyed the latter document, but that begs the question why they didn't do the same with the other document?
Btw when you go to the link provided for the list, you will note that it says that it could not be determined when the list was written.
-
I completely agree, Walt, but where is the document signed by Drain for the evidence he took to Washington and (I've asked this before) the document for the return of the evidence the next day?
I know you said that the conspirators destroyed the latter document, but that begs the question why they didn't do the same with the other document?
Btw when you go to the link provided for the list, you will note that it says that it could not be determined when the list was written.
Btw when you go to the link provided for the list, you will note that it says that it could not be determined when the list was written.
WHO? ... could not determine when the list was written?... The Dallas Police?.... Would they have a vested interest in leading folks to believe that the time and date of birth of the list can't be determined?
I'm mildly disappointed that you Martin can't readily see when the original list was created..... It seems so elementary to me....
I understand that many folks simply don't want to accept the bitter truth....But I didn't think you were in that crowd.
-
Btw when you go to the link provided for the list, you will note that it says that it could not be determined when the list was written.
WHO? ... could not determine when the list was written?... The Dallas Police?.... Would they have a vested interest in leading folks to believe that the time and date of birth of the list can't be determined?
I'm mildly disappointed that you Martin can't readily see when the original list was created..... It seems so elementary to me....
I understand that many folks simply don't want to accept the bitter truth....But I didn't think you were in that crowd.
I am just trying to understand, Walt. Not jumping to conclusions.....
-
I am just trying to understand, Walt. Not jumping to conclusions.....
Yes...And that's exactly the way it should be.... A man should see the facts and draw his own conclusions...and that isn't easy in this case, with so much official disinformation sown through out the case.
-
I'm mildly disappointed that you Martin can't readily see when the original list was created..... It seems so elementary to me....
Everything you fabricate is “readily seen” by you, Walt.
-
Everything you fabricate is “readily seen” by you, Walt.
Huh???..... Would you expect something else?? Do you believe that any person who has invented anything, doesn't see his ideas clearly?
-
No.
Sure, but so far you've provided no supporting evidence for your OP claim, "evidence inventory list that accompanied the evidence".
Really?... What other reason would FBI agent Hosty, photograph and type up, a list of the evidence... (Hosty is probably the guy who took the photos of TWO ( ONLY TWO) spent 6.5 rifle shells....)
In his book Assignment: Oswald Hosty tells of being dead tired after running down information, and evidence, all day and then being required to catalog and photograph the evidence....
I'm not proposing that Hosty created the original evidence list "A" ( although he might have) I'm merely pointing out that the evidence was being cataloged that night.
-
Huh???..... Would you expect something else?? Do you believe that any person who has invented anything, doesn't see his ideas clearly?
It’s just too bad that so many of your “ideas” (which you state as facts) have no evidence to support them.
-
It’s just too bad that so many of your “ideas” (which you state as facts) have no evidence to support them.
Simply because you don't know what I know.... Does not mean there is no evidence to support me....
IOW....Simply because you're ignorant does not prove that the evidence doesn't exist... If you'd simply extract your head, you may find that "my ideas" are well supported by evidence....
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337332/m1/1/
"Vince Drain also present. Actually took possession of all the evidence." signed... JC Day
Yes, indeed he did..... and he initialed the 3X5 index card when he took possession of it ......
-
Well, at least that document actually has a date on it.
But do you see anything about an index card or a palmprint on that document?
-
Well, at least that document actually has a date on it.
But do you see anything about an index card or a palmprint on that document?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337332/m1/1/
"Vince Drain also present. Actually took possession of all the evidence." signed... JC Day
Mr I, asked...."do you see anything about an index card or a palmprint on that document?"
Duh?? At the time Lt Day didn't know what the smudge was that he had lifted from the wooden foregrip of the rifle. So how the hell could he enter that item... For all he knew the smudge might have been Captain Fritz's print....
However, please notice that the rifle is merely identified as a 6.5 "lever action" rifle C2766 and there are only TWO spent shells that were found beneath a window... . And what does it say about these items?....Doesn't it say that they were released to Charles T. Brown special agent FBI....And did Day add a footnote that says...quote... "Vince Drain also present. Actually took possession of all the evidence." signed... JC Day ... unquote
Now let's examine your ability to reason.... Since Lee Oswald is listed as the subject .... WHEN do you deduce this document was written? WHEN did Vince Drain take possession of all of the evidence?
-
Yes, really.
You brought up Hosty, who said there was another reason for what Hosty did?
Nice, so?
Who claimed it was not being cataloged that night?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337332/m1/1/
"Vince Drain also present. Actually took possession of all the evidence." signed... JC Day
-
Vince Drain took possession of all the evidence the DPD gave him that night. The index card with the magic partial palmprint was not among those items. Drain knew nothing about it. It arrived in Washington separately a week later.
-
Vince Drain took possession of all the evidence the DPD gave him that night. The index card with the magic partial palmprint was not among those items. Drain knew nothing about it. It arrived in Washington separately a week later.
Drain knew nothing about it.
If you actually believe that ..... Then you surely believe the Easter Bunny brings all those chocolate marshmellow, and colored eggs
-
If Drain was going to lie, wouldn’t he say that he did get the magic partial palmprint on 11/22? Why would he contradict Day if he was going to falsify something? It’s Day who refused to sign a statement surrounding his handling of the alleged lift.
-
If Drain was going to lie, wouldn’t he say that he did get the magic partial palmprint on 11/22? Why would he contradict Day if he was going to falsify something? It’s Day who refused to sign a statement surrounding his handling of the alleged lift.
Hoover, was in control.... If he wanted J.C. Day to swear that he had neglected to inform the FBI that he had found the print on the metal barrel then that's the story Day would spew...and Vince Drain sure as hell knew that he had better dance to Hoover's tune...
But the evidence list reveals the truth....That smudge that was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of a carcano was listed as item #14 on the list of the evidence that Day said.... "Vince Drain actually took possession of all of the evidence"
-
Hoover, was in control.... If he wanted J.C. Day to swear that he had neglected to inform the FBI that he had found the print on the metal barrel then that's the story Day would spew...and Vince Drain sure as hell knew that he had better dance to Hoover's tune...
But the evidence list reveals the truth....That smudge that was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of a carcano was listed as item #14 on the list of the evidence that Day said.... "Vince Drain actually took possession of all of the evidence"
Walt,
I have truly been trying to understand your argument, but I'm still puzzled about what exactly the purpose of your argument is.
Let's for argument's sake say that the index card with the partial palmprint was indeed taken to Drain to Washington on 11/22/63, as you claim. What would be the significance of that?
-
Or if, as you say, Hoover was in control, why did Hoover want Day’s story to conflict with Drain’s and Latona’s?
-
Walt,
I have truly been trying to understand your argument, but I'm still puzzled about what exactly the purpose of your argument is.
Let's for argument's sake say that the index card with the partial palmprint was indeed taken to Drain to Washington on 11/22/63, as you claim. What would be the significance of that?
Martin, The official story is: Lee Oswald's palm print was found on the metal barrel of the rifle when Lt Day disassembled the rifle and found the palm print on the 5/8" diameter metal barrel. ( only about 1/4" of a 5/8 " diameter metal tube would make contact with a man's palm and that's too small to identify the person who left the print)
There had been NO identifiable prints found on the rifle ( and even to this very day, no identifiable prints have been found) BUT...Dallas's DA Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's prints on the gun...He was lying through his teeth....But they desperately needed something to tie Lee Oswald to the murder, thus the tale about Lt Day finding the print on the metal barrel and his neglecting to tell the FBI that he'd found that print . The whole tale is BS.... What the "experts" have told us was Oswald's palm print that was lifted from the metal barrel is actually simply an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day Lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the carcano. Day spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on that wooden fore grip just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where the rifle had been carefully hidden ( not carelessly tossed aside as the liars have told us) Day knew the wood of the foregrip would absorb the "print" so he decided to use scotch tape to lift that "print". Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card. Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766 . ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)
At the time they released they rifle to the FBI NO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS had been found on the rifle But the 3 X 5 index card was among the evidence released. When the FBI examine the lift on Saturday, they reported that the "print" was useless for identification purposes, but after Henry Wade's bold lie they could not let us pissants know that there was no physical evidence that connected Lee Oswald to the rifle....
Perhaps you're like so many folks.... You simply can't believe that Hoover and LBJ were the prime conspirators.....
-
Probably the weakest case against Hoover and LBJ I've seen so far.
How does a lie by Henry Wade implicate Hoover when Hoover's own finger print expert throws Day under the bus stating there was nothing on that rifle.
You've stopped making any sense.
When a person views a scene from a perspective they have never used everything seems to be out of focus....
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus"..... Mark Twain
Would it clear things up a bit if you knew that Henry Wade was one of J.Edgar Hoover's "Extra Special" agents.... A secret undercover agent who reported directly to Hoover. ( Hoover's private gang) Hoover had a secret band of agents like a Mafia godfather ..... Those agents were extremely loyal and devoted to Hoover. They had been FBI Special agents and had officially retired, or resigned, but in reality they had became secret agents for J.Edgar Hoover. If Hoover wanted some "dirty work" done he could place a call to one of his "Extra Special" agents.
-
Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card.
Alyea didn’t say that.
Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766 . ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)
How did you determine what Day would have done if he had been in the crime lab?
-
Alyea didn’t say that.
How did you determine what Day would have done if he had been in the crime lab?
Alyea didn’t say that.
Oh yes he did!!.... Sorry about your ignorance...
How did you determine what Day would have done if he had been in the crime lab?
You have an aversion for commonsense,.... don't you John
-
Alyea didn’t say that.
Oh yes he did!!.... Sorry about your ignorance...
No, Walt. Alyea didn’t say that he watched Day lift a smudge from the foregrip and place the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribble the pertinent information on that card. You made all that up.
You have an aversion for commonsense,.... don't you John
“Common sense” is what you call it when you fabricate a story for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
-
No, Walt. Alyea didn’t say that he watched Day lift a smudge from the foregrip and place the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribble the pertinent information on that card. You made all that up.
“Common sense” is what you call it when you fabricate a story for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Alyea didn’t say that he watched Day lift a smudge from the foregrip and place the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card ...
Did Alyea say that he "watched as Lt. Day lifted prints from the rifle "in the TSBD just minutes after the rifle was pulled from beneath the boxes of books ?
“Common sense” is what you call it when you fabricate a story for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Most rational folks with commonsense would understand that Lt Day wouldn't have lifted the print or disturbed the print in anyway if that print had been found on the metal barrel UNDERNEATH the wooden foregrip where it clearly would have been well protected by the wooden forgrip. Day claimed that after dusting the area with finger print powder and discovering the print he lifted the print with scoth tape. But when the FBI received the rifle they could not see any indication that the area beneath the foregrip had been processed for prints...Not even a trace of print dust or a print...
And IF Day had found a print while working in the Crime Lab it's very doubtful that he would have placed the lift on a 3 X 5 card and then hastily scribbled a truncated message on that card.... He had plenty of typing paper and typewriter right at his finger tips.
-
No, Walt. Alyea didn’t say that he watched Day lift a smudge from the foregrip and place the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribble the pertinent information on that card. You made all that up.
“Common sense” is what you call it when you fabricate a story for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Tom Alyea wrote:....Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. When he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz. Fritz pulled the bolt back and a live round ejected and landed on the boxes below. Fritz put the cartridge in his pocket. I did not see Fritz pick up anything other than the live round. . . .
Alyea's description contradicts the few brief clips that we've been allowed to see.... The film that we've been shown, shows Lt Day lifting the rifle by the strap and handing it to Captain Fritz.... But Alyea says that Lt Day immediately started dusting the rifle. looking for finger prints.
-
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Tom Alyea wrote:....Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. When he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz. Fritz pulled the bolt back and a live round ejected and landed on the boxes below. Fritz put the cartridge in his pocket. I did not see Fritz pick up anything other than the live round. . . .
Alyea's description contradicts the few brief clips that we've been allowed to see.... The film that we've been shown, shows Lt Day lifting the rifle by the strap and handing it to Captain Fritz.... But Alyea says that Lt Day immediately started dusting the rifle. looking for finger prints.
As I said in the other thread, if Kritzberg's hearsay and Alyea's memory are accurate, then where are the other "little white cards"? And what's your reason to just assume that the magic partial palmprint was one of those and state it as a fact?
-
As I said in the other thread, if Kritzberg's hearsay and Alyea's memory are accurate, then where are the other "little white cards"? And what's your reason to just assume that the magic partial palmprint was one of those and state it as a fact?
The FACT is:.... I've seen the evidence inventory list and have the deductive reasoning to recognize that the list was created along with photos of the evidence that the FBI took into their possession at midnight 11 / 22/63.
It's truly a pity that you lack commonsense and the ability to think rationally......
-
The FACT is:.... I've seen the evidence inventory list and have the deductive reasoning to recognize that the list was created along with photos of the evidence that the FBI took into their possession at midnight 11 / 22/63.
It's truly a pity that you lack commonsense and the ability to think rationally......
"deductive reasoning" is what you call making up stories with no basis in reality.
-
"deductive reasoning" is what you call making up stories with no basis in reality.
The problem is:.. You have a bad case of cranial rectalitis ..... Thus you can't see what's right in front of your nose.
-
The problem is:.. You have a bad case of cranial rectalitis ..... Thus you can't see what's right in front of your nose.
Strangely enough, that doesn't make your argument any more compelling.
-
On page 260 of Volume 24 of the WC hearings there is a altered copy of evidence inventory list that accompanied the evidence that was being turned over to the FBI at midnight, 11 / 22 /63 . Item # 14( counting from the top down) on that list says....
Quote.... 1 Partial palm print " off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" on rifle # C 2766. .... unquote
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
Can you see any print on the card?
Since the evidence inventory list is not dated, there is a dispute about WHEN this list was created.....
FBI Agent James Hosty in his Book stated that he and another agent photographed the evidence and typed up a list of the evidence that was being released to the FBI that evening. Commonsense ( and Legality) dictates that both parties ( The FBI and the DPD) would require a list of the evidence.
Item # 14 on the list is the so called "palm Print" ..... And that means the palm print story told by Detective Day is nothing but a damned lie.... He didn't discover that "palm print" on the metal barrel after disassembling the rifle....nor did he fail to tell the FBI about that print. He found that smudge that he imagined might be a palm print on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle while he was checking it for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where it had been carefully hidden.
-
Since we know that the card measures 3" x 5" we can use those known measurements to find that the tape being used was 1 " wide...
Since we know that the barrel of a carcano is 5/8 (.625") of an inch in diameter...then we can determine the circumference of he barrel....The circumference of the carcano barrel is....1.963" Let's keep it simple and call it two inches ..... and half that circumference is 1 inch..... Which means the 1 inch wide scotch tape would have been wrapped halfway around the barrel......
Do you believe that there was a palm print that covered half the circumference of the metal barrel?
-
Since we know that the card measures 3" x 5" we can use those known measurements to find that the tape being used was 1 " wide...
Wait, how do we know this card is 3”x5”?
It’s not a white card either, so there goes your Alyea theory.
-
Wait, how do we know this card is 3”x5”?
It’s not a white card either, so there goes your Alyea theory.
Weak.....Very weak, John..... Do you you think your insipid counterpoint destroys Tom Alyea's statement?
Did Day see the print on the SIDE of the barrel, or the bottom of the barrel?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
-
In 1984, the author Henry Hurt interviewed Vincent Drain, the FBI agent who had received the rifle from the Dallas police:
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said Drain. He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case.
Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it [Oswald’s print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
(Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Henry Holt, 1985, p.109)
-
In 1984, the author Henry Hurt interviewed Vincent Drain, the FBI agent who had received the rifle from the Dallas police:
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said Drain. He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case.
Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it [Oswald’s print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
(Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Henry Holt, 1985, p.109)
Drain was up to his eyebrows in the cover up and the framing of Lee Oswald.....But perhaps he truly believes the DPD planted a palm print on the rifle. Drain is saying that the DPD framed the dead Lee Oswald.....so he knows they were corrupt.....
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said Drain.
He's right there never ever was a identifiable Palm Print on the rifle..... Day lifted what he imagined to be a palm print from the WOODEN forgrip but what he imagined to be a palm print, was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge.
-
Weak.....Very weak, John..... Do you you think your insipid counterpoint destroys Tom Alyea's statement?
There is now literally no reason to think that Alyea saw Day creating the magic partial palmprint in the TSBD.
Did Day see the print on the SIDE of the barrel, or the bottom of the barrel?
I’m not convinced that Day saw (or lifted) any print on the barrel.
-
Drain was up to his eyebrows in the cover up and the framing of Lee Oswald.....But perhaps he truly believes the DPD planted a palm print on the rifle. Drain is saying that the DPD framed the dead Lee Oswald.....so he knows they were corrupt.....
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said Drain.
He's right there never ever was a identifiable Palm Print on the rifle..... Day lifted what he imagined to be a palm print from the WOODEN forgrip but what he imagined to be a palm print, was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge.
He's right there never ever was a identifiable Palm Print on the rifle..... Day lifted what he imagined to be a palm print from the WOODEN forgrip but what he imagined to be a palm print, was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge.
So, this entire convoluted conversation was much to do about nothing?
-
He's right there never ever was a identifiable Palm Print on the rifle..... Day lifted what he imagined to be a palm print from the WOODEN forgrip but what he imagined to be a palm print, was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge.
So, this entire convoluted conversation was much to do about nothing?
No....They succeeded in leading the pissants to believe that Lee Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle.
-
No....They succeeded in leading the pissants to believe that Lee Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle.
They succeeded in leading the pissants to believe that Lee Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle.
And to this very day many CT's still believe that Lee's palm print was on the rifle, and they attempt to explain it away by saying it was planted on the 5/8 inch diameter metal barrel.... 5/8 " is the diameter of a AA penlight battery and the circumference is a mere two inches ...... The surface that would come in contact with a man's palm would be approximately 1/4 inch. A man could not deposit an identifiable palm print on that small surface.
There never ever was a palm print on the metal barrel..... What the lying conspirators presented as Lee Oswald's palm print is nothing but an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day spotted on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle when he was examining the rifle in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled it from beneath the pallet of books where it had been carefully hidden. Day lifted that smudge and placed the lift on a little white index card, and he scrawled the pertinent information on the card " off underside gun barrell ( sic) near end of foregrip C2766" he also signed and dated the card....
The Dallas DA told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssssswald's prints on the gun, which was a bare faced lie, but they were stuck with Wades lie ( he was a key conspirator) So they invented the tale about Day disassembling the rifle and discovering Lee's palm print on the metal barrel, but had failed to tell The FBI about the discovery. They had forgot that they had listed the 3 X 5 index card on the evidence inventory sheet that had been released to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63. When they became aware that the index card had been listed on the evidence inventory list they tried to destroy all of those copies.... There were many copies made of the evidence inventory list and they tried to destroy all of those copies.....However one copy was kept in the files of the Texas Rangers where it was discovered many years later. There is no copy of the original evidence inventory list in the records ......
-
They succeeded in leading the pissants to believe that Lee Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle.
And to this very day many CT's still believe that Lee's palm print was on the rifle, and they attempt to explain it away by saying it was planted on the 5/8 inch diameter metal barrel.... 5/8 " is the diameter of a AA penlight battery and the circumference is a mere two inches ...... The surface that would come in contact with a man's palm would be approximately 1/4 inch. A man could not deposit an identifiable palm print on that small surface.
There never ever was a palm print on the metal barrel..... What the lying conspirators presented as Lee Oswald's palm print is nothing but an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day spotted on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle when he was examining the rifle in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled it from beneath the pallet of books where it had been carefully hidden. Day lifted that smudge and placed the lift on a little white index card, and he scrawled the pertinent information on the card " off underside gun barrell ( sic) near end of foregrip C2766" he also signed and dated the card....
The Dallas DA told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssssswald's prints on the gun, which was a bare faced lie, but they were stuck with Wades lie ( he was a key conspirator) So they invented the tale about Day disassembling the rifle and discovering Lee's palm print on the metal barrel, but had failed to tell The FBI about the discovery. They had forgot that they had listed the 3 X 5 index card on the evidence inventory sheet that had been released to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63. When they became aware that the index card had been listed on the evidence inventory list they tried to destroy all of those copies.... There were many copies made of the evidence inventory list and they tried to destroy all of those copies.....However one copy was kept in the files of the Texas Rangers where it was discovered many years later. There is no copy of the original evidence inventory list in the records ......
Cool story, bro.
Now what's your evidence that
a) A man could not deposit an identifiable palm print on that small surface
b) Day spotted an unidentifiable smudge on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle when he was examining the rifle in the TSBD
c) Day lifted that smudge in the TSBD and placed the lift on a little white index card
d) A 3 X 5 index card was listed on an evidence inventory sheet that was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63
e) A 3 x 5 index card with a lift was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63
f) they tried to destroy all of those copies
P.S. telling the same story over and over again is not evidence that it's true.
-
Cool story, bro.
Now what's your evidence that
a) A man could not deposit an identifiable palm print on that small surface
b) Day spotted an unidentifiable smudge on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle when he was examining the rifle in the TSBD
c) Day lifted that smudge in the TSBD and placed the lift on a little white index card
d) A 3 X 5 index card was listed on an evidence inventory sheet that was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63
e) A 3 x 5 index card with a lift was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63
f) they tried to destroy all of those copies
P.S. telling the same story over and over again is not evidence that it's true.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
Do you see a print on this exhibit??
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
-
The existence of this card does not demonstrate that it was lifted in the TSBD, or that it was lifted on 11/22/63, or that it was turned over to the FBI on 11/22/63, or that any evidence sheets were destroyed.
Yes, I do see ridges on the exhibit.
-
The existence of this card does not demonstrate that it was lifted in the TSBD, or that it was lifted on 11/22/63, or that it was turned over to the FBI on 11/22/63, or that any evidence sheets were destroyed.
Yes, I do see ridges on the exhibit.
Would you please point them out....I have strained my eyes looking at the copy that has the "palm print" circled...and I can't see anything that looks like a print. But on the large copy that you posted I can see a dark smudge but that smudge is not withing the circle that is supposedly around the invisible print.
BTW....I believe the copy that you posted is excellent.... But there may be better copies available.
I know that the next argument will be :.... We are not qualified to identify a palm print..... And that is true, but we sure as hell have eyes with which we can see for ourselves if there is a palm print on the exhibit.
I'm anxiously awaiting the copy on which you can see ridges....
-
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
-
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
Thank you, Jack.....I can see a print on the copy you posted.....Is it possible to post Lee Oswald's palm print from his police file?
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
Lt Day never was able to identify the "palm print" as the print of Lee Oswald...... But Latona testified that
Here's Latona's testimony....
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
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.
Latona testified that when he examined the rifle on Saturday 11 / 23 /63 there was no indication that a lift had been made from the underside of the gun barrel, not even a hint of finger print powder. How could he have focused his attention on that area of the rifle if he didn't have any knowledge that a lift had been performed from that area?
The Bottom Line....By Saturday 11 / 23 / 63 , Nobody had found any prints on the rifle that would have allowed Henry Wade ,The Dallas DA, to tell reporters that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald's prints had been found on the gun. But he DID tell reporters that lie....and the reporters in turn told the ignorant pissants, who belived the lie because it came from authority.
-
Why do you think Latona focused his attention on that area of the rifle on 11/23?
-
Why do you think Latona focused his attention on that area of the rifle on 11/23?
He said that he did.... He said that when he received the 3 X 5 card ( a week after the murder) he knew that he had examined the area depicted in the photo and found nothing to indicate a print had been there nor any indication that the area had been dusted for prints.
Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle,
Latona testified that when he examined the rifle on Saturday 11 / 23 /63 there was no indication that a lift had been made from the underside of the gun barrel, not even a hint of finger print powder. How could he have focused his attention on that area of the rifle if he didn't have any knowledge that a lift had been performed from that area?
-
LHO's right palm print (probably taken at the morgue):
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_palmprint.jpg)
-
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
Jack, since you were kind enough to post he print.....Could you explain how Lt Day could have seen a print on the bottom of the barrel on the carcano? Look at a photo of that area of a carcano and try to reconcile Day's description with that are of a carcano...
Day said ...Quote..."I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock"...unquote..
Question...How could Day have seen a print on THE SIDE of the barrel and then lift the print from the BOTTOM of the barrel??.....
-
LHO's right palm print (probably taken at the morgue):
Jack , can you reduce the size a bit so we can see the area of Lee's palm that is allegedly shown in CE 639 .....I believe the WC said that the area was nearer to the litle finger joint, and that's the area that was circled on the exhibit.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_palmprint.jpg)
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
-
If that index card was exactly 3" x 5" then we can measure the dimensions of the print and scale it precisely with Oswald's inked palm print. The focus should be on LHO's palm swirl:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/lho_palmprint.gif)
This GIF is not good enough to establish a match. We need to work with the best imagery available and we need to get the scale and orientation exactly right (which is not the case here). I doubt a match can be established even if there is one.
Less to work with than Malcolm Wallace's print found on a box on the 6th floor. There is obviously a heavy bias here to link Oswald to the MC, since he posed with the rifle in his backyard, took a pot shot at Walker with it (missed due to the wonky scope), disassembled it and placed it into a paper bag (with wonky scope), smuggled it into the TSBD, reassembled it with a dime as a screwdriver, hid the MC on the 6th floor, retrieved it later and took at least 3 shots at the POTUS, then ditched the rifle and fled the scene without leaving a single identifiable print on the rifle. The lack of Oswald's prints on everything is the smoking gun here. The DPD's total disregard for the fingerprint evidence is another smoking gun. The DPD knew there were no prints to compromise so they bare-handled everything.
Where is the analysis that demonstrates a match to Oswald palm print?
-
We know the tape was 1 inch wide. So this print looks to be about 3/4 of an inch across .... Since the print couldn't possibly have been lifted from a round surface that had a half circumference of 1 inch ( the circumference of the carcano barrel is two inches) This print is not at all distorted as it would be if the palm was wrapped around the barrel of the carcano. This print appears to have been lifted from a flat surface......
-
If that index card was exactly 3" x 5" then we can measure the dimensions of the print and scale it precisely with Oswald's inked palm print. The focus should be on LHO's palm swirl:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/lho_palmprint.gif)
This GIF is not good enough to establish a match. We need to work with the best imagery available and we need to get the scale and orientation exactly right (which is not the case here). I doubt a match can be established even if there is one.
Less to work with than Malcolm Wallace's print found on a box on the 6th floor. There is obviously a heavy bias here to link Oswald to the MC, since he posed with the rifle in his backyard, took a pot shot at Walker with it (missed due to the wonky scope), disassembled it and placed it into a paper bag (with wonky scope), smuggled it into the TSBD, reassembled it with a dime as a screwdriver, hid the MC on the 6th floor, retrieved it later and took at least 3 shots at the POTUS, then ditched the rifle and fled the scene without leaving a single identifiable print on the rifle. The lack of Oswald's prints on everything is the smoking gun here. The DPD's total disregard for the fingerprint evidence is another smoking gun. The DPD knew there were no prints to compromise so they bare-handled everything.
Where is the analysis that demonstrates a match to Oswald palm print?
Jack, While looking for witness testimony this morning I saw a photo in which Lee's right palm was shown.....They circled the area from which the palm print had allegedly deposited the print on the barrel..... It was NOT the heel of the palm that was circled....The area circled was more toward the little finger joint...
PS I found the exhibit ....It's CE 638. And the area circled is not the heel of the palm.....
-
For the record, below is LHO's post-mortem right hand print. I don't see any other swirl near his pinky or anywhere else on his palm that matches the print lifted by Day. Do you?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_handprint.jpg)
-
For the record, below is LHO's post-mortem right hand print. I don't see any other swirl near his pinky or otherwise that matches the print lifted by Day. Do you?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_handprint.jpg)
No, there is no swirl in the area of the palm near the pinky finger joint of Lee's right hand .... And I think you'll agree that if a mans hand was wrapped around the barrel the print would be distorted by the curvature of the round barrel ....and yet when you superimposed the print from a FLAT surface onto the lift there seems to be a possible match. How can that be???
-
Latona testified that when he examined the rifle on Saturday 11 / 23 /63 there was no indication that a lift had been made from the underside of the gun barrel, not even a hint of finger print powder.
He doesn't say that he made this observation on the 23rd, or any time before receiving the magic partial palmprint.
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.
-
He doesn't say that he made this observation on the 23rd, or any time before receiving the magic partial palmprint.
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.
I don't give flip how you interpret Latona's testimony....The bottom line IS: ...By Saturday 11 / 23 / 63 , Nobody had found any prints on the rifle that would have allowed Henry Wade ,The Dallas DA, to tell reporters that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald's prints had been found on the gun. But he DID tell reporters that lie....and the reporters in turn told the ignorant pissants, who believed the lie because it came from authority.
And Wade wasn't the only liar....Latona should have known that the palm print had NOT come from that 5/8 inch diameter barrel.....I'm certainly no exprt but even I can see that the so called "palm print" did not come from a round surface....
-
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/palmprint.jpg)
Jack, since this print allegedly was lifted from a 5/8 " diameter round barrel ( with a half circumference of 1 inch ) don't you think the edges of the print should fade. IOW the palm of a man's hand would be in solid contact with the center of the round surface but the top and bottom edges would have less contact with the round surface and gradually fade away.
We know that the tape in this lift was one inch wide.....so that tape would wrap half way around the barrel . IMO we should see a good print in the center and less and less of the print at the top and bottom. This print looks like it was lifted from a flat surface.... Question: Would it be possible to place the print on the photo of the 3 X 5 card photographically ? Like a double exposure....First take a photo of a print and then without advancing the film take a photo of the surface on which you want the print to appear? There are probably other ways that the print could be made to appear on a surface...but I think you'll get the idea.
-
I don't give flip how you interpret Latona's testimony....The bottom line IS: ...By Saturday 11 / 23 / 63 , Nobody had found any prints on the rifle that would have allowed Henry Wade ,The Dallas DA, to tell reporters that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald's prints had been found on the gun.
I agree. And none of this demonstrates that your fabrication about the palmprint being given to the FBI on 11/22 is actually true. I don't give a flip about the stories you make up in your head.
-
I agree. And none of this demonstrates that your fabrication about the palmprint being given to the FBI on 11/22 is actually true. I don't give a flip about the stories you make up in your head.
So we agree that Henry Wade was a damned liar, and he framed Lee Oswald, who told the whole wide world that he was being framed when he said " I'm just a Patsy"
Henry Wade was not a "lone nut" and acting on his own when he told reporters that they had found Ossssswald's prints on the gun... But he was a key conspirator.
-
Jack, since this print allegedly was lifted from a 5/8 " diameter round barrel ( with a half circumference of 1 inch ) don't you think the edges of the print should fade. IOW the palm of a man's hand would be in solid contact with the center of the round surface but the top and bottom edges would have less contact with the round surface and gradually fade away.
Walt, to overlay a print lifted from a cylinder vs a flat surface requires correcting for the 3D deformation of the print image. You need to know the diameter and alignment of the cylinder to apply the digital filter that rectifies the deformation. The correction looks like this:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_pp_cyl_distortion.gif)
We know that the tape in this lift was one inch wide.....so that tape would wrap half way around the barrel . IMO we should see a good print in the center and less and less of the print at the top and bottom. This print looks like it was lifted from a flat surface.... Question: Would it be possible to place the print on the photo of the 3 X 5 card photographically ? Like a double exposure....First take a photo of a print and then without advancing the film take a photo of the surface on which you want the print to appear? There are probably other ways that the print could be made to appear on a surface...but I think you'll get the idea.
I won't touch this one unless I get a microscopic scan of the palm print on the 3"x5" card. We need enough resolution to identify dermal patterns and scars, etc. that match the inked hand print. Otherwise, I will be spinning my wheels and the only thing I could do would be to determine the probable location of the print on Oswald, the correct scale and orientation of Oswald's hand as he gripped the barrel and correct for the distortion created by lifting the print from a cylinder and taping it to a flat surface. But all that isn't good enough unless the resolution is sufficient to match up specific points on the print like a trained dermatoglyphician does.
-
Walt, to overlay a print lifted from a cylinder vs a flat surface requires correcting for the 3D deformation of the print image. You need to know the diameter and alignment of the cylinder to apply the digital filter that rectifies the deformation. The correction looks like this:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_pp_cyl_distortion.gif)
I won't touch this one unless I get a microscopic scan of the palm print on the 3"x5" card. We need enough resolution to identify dermal patterns and scars, etc. that match the inked hand print. Otherwise, I will be spinning my wheels and the only thing I could do would be to determine the probable location of the print on Oswald, the correct scale and orientation of Oswald's hand as he gripped the barrel and correct for the distortion created by lifting the print from a cylinder and taping it to a flat surface. But all that isn't good enough unless the resolution is sufficient to match up specific points on the print like a trained dermatoglyphician does.
Jack, I think that you're making this waaaaay more complicated than necessary .... The idea is very elementary.... A man's print on a small ( 5/8 inch) round tube would make good contact only at the center of the tube's surface. The print left by the contact would become distorted and less distinct at the outer edges of the print. The print that you posted is not distorted nor is it indistinct at the outer edges.... The print looks like it came from a flat surface...
-
Jack, I think that you're making this waaaaay more complicated than necessary .... The idea is very elementary.... A man's print on a small ( 5/8 inch) round tube would make good contact only at the center of the tube's surface. The print left by the contact would become distorted and less distinct at the outer edges of the print. The print that you posted is not distorted nor is it indistinct at the outer edges.... The print looks like it came from a flat surface...
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 fade away at the point they lose contact with the rifle, as expected.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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, 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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
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....
All I meant was it would answer your question how lifting a print from the barrel distorts the print when you tape it to a flat surface. You can answer most of your questions unless you don't actually have a MC at your dispose. And your experiments would not be a fools errand. It would force the LNers to refute you by conducting the experiments themselves or STFU. That's all you can do. You will never change minds on this site.
I'm still waiting for 1 LNer to do this cheap easy-peasy experiment to convince themselves there was a legitimate straight line trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. Somebody please show me a legit trajectory with the 2 laser challenge:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Sit in a chair and get between 2 lasers pointed at each other (SLOUCH ANY WAY YOU LIKE) as depicted above and duplicate JFK's entry/exit wounds from the magic bullet. Post your photos and make all us CTs eat a heaping helping of crow. Mytton has done it and you know how much he likes to post photoshop pics. Do you think he would miss an opportunity to shove this down my festering gob? Not bloody likely.
I will continue to wait for some honesty from the LNers...(cough cough)
-
All I meant was it would answer your question how lifting a print from the barrel distorts the print when you tape it to a flat surface. You can answer most of your questions unless you don't actually have a MC at your dispose. And your experiments would not be a fools errand. It would force the LNers to refute you by conducting the experiments themselves or STFU. That's all you can do. You will never change minds on this site.
I'm still waiting for 1 LNer to do this cheap easy-peasy experiment to convince themselves there was a legitimate straight line trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. Somebody please show me a legit trajectory with the 2 laser challenge:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Sit in a chair and get between 2 lasers pointed at each other (SLOUCH ANY WAY YOU LIKE) as depicted above and duplicate JFK's entry/exit wounds from the magic bullet. Post your photos and make all us CTs eat a heaping helping of crow. Mytton has done it and you know how much he likes to post photoshop pics. Do you think he would miss an opportunity to shove this down my festering gob? Not bloody likely.
I will continue to wait for some honesty from the LNers...(cough cough)
An honest LNer.... is that possible? Apparently you never bothered to look up CE 1304.....( it's on page 132 of the WR....) The bayonet lug that surrounds the barrel is clearly visible. That Bayonet lug refutes the story that the conspirators invented about Day finding a palm print on the barrel of the carcano.
-
All I meant was it would answer your question how lifting a print from the barrel distorts the print when you tape it to a flat surface. You can answer most of your questions unless you don't actually have a MC at your dispose. And your experiments would not be a fools errand. It would force the LNers to refute you by conducting the experiments themselves or STFU. That's all you can do. You will never change minds on this site.
I'm still waiting for 1 LNer to do this cheap easy-peasy experiment to convince themselves there was a legitimate straight line trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. Somebody please show me a legit trajectory with the 2 laser challenge:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Sit in a chair and get between 2 lasers pointed at each other (SLOUCH ANY WAY YOU LIKE) as depicted above and duplicate JFK's entry/exit wounds from the magic bullet. Post your photos and make all us CTs eat a heaping helping of crow. Mytton has done it and you know how much he likes to post photoshop pics. Do you think he would miss an opportunity to shove this down my festering gob? Not bloody likely.
I will continue to wait for some honesty from the LNers...(cough cough)
look up CE 1304.....( it's on page 132 of the WR....) The bayonet lug that surrounds the barrel is clearly visible. That Bayonet lug refutes the story that the conspirators invented about Day finding a palm print on the barrel of the carcano.
-
That immaterial. If that particular list described the evidence released that night then Drain would have gotten the magic partial palmprint that night. He didn’t. It was mailed to Washington days later.
It was mailed to Washington days later.
No, this is not Correct.... The 3 X 5 card was included in the second release of evidence to the FBI...It was NOT mailed to Washington.
You may remember the hocus pocus involved in sending the evidence back and forth between the DPD and the FBI. The main reason for this sham was so the DPD could put Lee Oswald palm print on that 3 X 5 card.... There was no identifiable print on that 3 X 5 card when it was first sent to the FBI on 11 /22/63.
-
It was mailed to Washington days later.
No, this is not Correct.... The 3 X 5 card was included in the second release of evidence to the FBI...It was NOT mailed to Washington.
And your sole evidence for this claim is an undated sheet of paper that just says “EVIDENCE” at the top.
And your imagination.
-
And your sole evidence for this claim is an undated sheet of paper that just says “EVIDENCE” at the top.
And your imagination.
My Imagination?....It's called deductive reasoning.... Something that you very obviously lack.... You wouldn't recognize the word Mississippi if one of the I's wasn't dotted.
-
My Imagination?....It's called deductive reasoning....
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
-
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Colin Crow requested that we take the debate off his thread....So I've moved your post over here .....
I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.
You claimed that “the reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card”. But that makes no sense whatsoever, because the altered version of that document says the exact same thing about the card.
Why do you want to verify that you're a liar, John? It's very easy to copy and post your statement.....But perhaps you didn't deliberately lie, You may simply be ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between the original evidence inventory list and the altered evidence inventory list....and therefor are ignorant to the FACT that the original list is NOT a WC exhibit. Please prove me wrong, by presenting the ORIGINAL list from the WC exhibits.....
Actually in reading your replies to my posts it's readily apparent that you don't understand what was going on between the FBI ( J.Edgar Hoover) and The DPD ( Jesse Curry) Both organizations were caught between a rock and a hard spot and Curry had publicly stated that the FBI Knew that Lee Oswald was a threat to the President* and the FBI knew that he was in Dallas but they didn't warn the Dallas police. Naturally Hoover was furious.....And he had far more power than Curry....So he told LBJ to order Chief Curry to turn the investigation over to the FBI.... But Curry continued to run his mouth and give out information that infuriated Hoover even more.....
* Lee Oswald was no threat to JFK..... But Hosty had blurted that piece of BS out to Detective Jack Revill in the parking garage at City Hall at about 2:50 PM ( an hour after Lee's arrest in the TT.) Hosty had told Revill that Lee Oswald was a communist ( Officially, Nobody had confirmed Lee's identity at the time, Fritz was still asking about the name Hidell ) who the FBI knewhe was a threat to the Pres and he was living in Dallas.
-
Why do you want to verify that you're a liar, John? It's very easy to copy and post your statement.....But perhaps you didn't deliberately lie, You may simply be ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between the original evidence inventory list and the altered evidence inventory list....and therefor are ignorant to the FACT that the original list is NOT a WC exhibit. Please prove me wrong, by presenting the ORIGINAL list from the WC exhibits.....
By all means, Walt, post a statement made by me that says the original “spent rounds (2)” list was in the WC exhibits.
Now are you going to continue to avoid the fact that Day’s palmprint card is on both lists? Yeah, they were really trying to keep the “pissants” from seeing a list with that card on it. :D
-
By all means, Walt, post a statement made by me that says the original “spent rounds (2)” list was in the WC exhibits.
Now are you going to continue to avoid the fact that Day’s palmprint card is on both lists? Yeah, they were really trying to keep the “pissants” from seeing a list with that card on it. :D
Now are you going to continue to avoid the fact that Day’s palmprint card is on both lists?
John .... Get Your head out and LISTEN.... Yes, the 3 X 5 card IS on both lists.... ( The Official WC document is an ALTERED Copy of the original) But They never intended for us to see that Original list.... When you acknowledge this FACT....Then I'll give you a bit more to digest....
-
He doesn't say that he made this observation on the 23rd, or any time before receiving the magic partial palmprint.
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.
He doesn't say that he made this observation on the 23rd, or any time before receiving the magic partial palmprint.
So You apparently believe that Latona received the rifle early Saturday morning 11 /23 /63. But he never looked for any prints other than those on the trigger guard that were covered with cellophane tape.
"There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints." In spite of his statement ...."There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints."
That indicates that he DID examine the entire rifle on 11 /23 /63... Just as common sense would dictate .
-
By all means, Walt, post a statement made by me that says the original “spent rounds (2)” list was in the WC exhibits.
Now are you going to continue to avoid the fact that Day’s palmprint card is on both lists? Yeah, they were really trying to keep the “pissants” from seeing a list with that card on it. :D
Here it is John..... I said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells) Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied .... Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote
Huh?? You think I mean?..... Have I not been perfectly clear? There is an evidence inventory list for the evidence that was turned over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight 11 /22/63.
A list which you cannot prove was an inventory for the FBI or that it was written on 11/22/63.
Quote
( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
Why did you lie, John?
-
John .... Get Your head out and LISTEN.... Yes, the 3 X 5 card IS on both lists.... ( The Official WC document is an ALTERED Copy of the original) But They never intended for us to see that Original list....
Maybe because of the “spent rounds (2)” but not because of the palmprint card that appears on both lists. That’s what you keep trying to sell.
-
Here it is John..... I said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells) Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied .... Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote
No Walt. You said that evidence sheet couldn’t be found in the WC exhibits because they didn’t want people to know about the palmprint. And I pointed out that the list in the WC exhibits also mentions the palmprint. Why would they keep that on the list if they altered it to hide the existence of the palmprint. That’s why I said that this fabrication doesn’t even make sense.
There’s still ZERO evidence that this list was created on 11/22 or accompanied the FBI transfer that night.
ZERO.
-
No Walt. You said that evidence sheet couldn’t be found in the WC exhibits because they didn’t want people to know about the palmprint. And I pointed out that the list in the WC exhibits also mentions the palmprint. Why would they keep that on the list if they altered it to hide the existence of the palmprint. That’s why I said that this fabrication doesn’t even make sense.
There’s still ZERO evidence that this list was created on 11/22 or accompanied the FBI transfer that night.
ZERO.
I pointed out that the list in the WC exhibits also mentions the palmprint. Why would they keep that on the list if they altered it to hide the existence of the palmprint
JEEEEZ...I really didn't think that you were this thick.... They wanted it on the altered list, because that altered list was created AFTER the FBI returned the evidence to Dallas...and that was AFTER Day ( with help ) had invented the tale (damned lie) about finding the print but had failed to tell the FBI on 11 /22/63.
-
Maybe because of the “spent rounds (2)” but not because of the palmprint card that appears on both lists. That’s what you keep trying to sell.
No!, that's NOT the major point... The main point is: There was an evidence list created for the evidence that was released to FBI Vince Drain at midnight 11 / 22/ 63.
However....That 3 X5 card was listed on that original list. Both the FBI and the DPD denied that Day had revealed that he had found a palm print on the gun. But by the 26th they decided that they would use that 3 X 5 card as proof that Lee Oswald's palm print was on that rifle, Forgetting that the card was listed on the original list of 11 / 22/63. When they realized the FU they tried to destroy all of the original list...But a Texas Ranger had filed one away . and J.Gary Shaw uncovered it several years later. That Original evidence list is NOT one of the WC exhibits.
-
I pointed out that the list in the WC exhibits also mentions the palmprint. Why would they keep that on the list if they altered it to hide the existence of the palmprint
JEEEEZ...I really didn't think that you were this thick.... They wanted it on the altered list, because that altered list was created AFTER the FBI returned the evidence to Dallas...and that was AFTER Day ( with help ) had invented the tale (damned lie) about finding the print but had failed to tell the FBI on 11 /22/63.
Since neither list is dated, what the hell difference does it make?
-
Since neither list is dated, what the hell difference does it make?
When are you going to wake up and see the light? I don't see how I can make it any clearer.... The lists do not have to be dated to know the dates on which they were created..... The information on the lists themselves indicate when they were created.
-
When are you going to wake up and see the light?
When you come up with some evidence beyond a fanciful story and “common sense”.
Hell, a story that even makes sense would be a good start.
-
When you come up with some evidence beyond a fanciful story and “common sense”.
Hell, a story that even makes sense would be a good start.
The reason that you can't comprehend is because you accept the crap the WC created in questioning Latona. The WC was NOT a fact finding committee... It was a cover up committee.
As the old axiom says... You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink.
You have taken one tiny step in acknowledging that the original list was created for the evidence that was being released to FBI agent Drain at midnight 11 /22/63.
You never did produce the original list ( not the altered list) that you said was a Warren Commission exhibit. When are you going to do that?
-
Since neither list is dated, what the hell difference does it make?
I don’t lie. The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.
Quote
The 3 X 5 card is on both lists ....but when the list was created on 11 /22/63 there was no identifiable print on that cellophane tape....but when it was released to the FBI on 11/26/ 63 it had the palm print of Lee Oswald on the cellophane tape....
This fabrication gets more and more absurd every minute. They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, so they replaced it with an altered copy that says the exact same thing about the palmprint. Makes perfect sense.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2019, 11:09:02 PM by John Iacoletti »
They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, HAD BEEN SENT TO THE FBI ON 11 /22 /63 . They wanted to pretend that detective Day and the DPD had not sent the 3 X 5 card with the evidence that was sent at midnight 11 /22 / 63. They said that Day had neglected to tell the FBI about his discovery when they released the evidence at midnight 11 /22 /63. But the list has the 3 X 5 card listed as item #14. So both the DPD and the FBI lied when the said that Day neglected to inform the FBI about the "palm Print"
Now let's change gears and examine that story..... Day said that he found a print on the bottom of (the 5/8 inch diameter) metal barrel near the end of the foregrip.
First off... Once the stock is removed there is no foregrip on the metal barrel.
Second) CE 1304 on page 132 of the Warren Report is a photo of the disassembled carcano. That photo clearly shows that DAY COULD NOT have found a print on the metal barrel at the location he described because the bayonet lug surrounds the barrel at that location on the barrel. IOW Day's claim is impossible.
Third ) Day said that he saw a print on the metal barrel that was sticking out from beneath the wood of the stock about 3 inches back from the muzzle end of the rifle
He said he could see the print on the SIDE of the barrel. So he disassembled the rifle and found a print on the BOTTOM of the barrel. LOOK at the photo of the disassembled carcano ( CE 1304 p 132 WR) ans see with your own eyes the bayonet lug that surrounds the barrel rendering Day's tale a damned lie.
-
The reason that you can't comprehend is because you accept the crap the WC created in questioning Latona. The WC was NOT a fact finding committee... It was a cover up committee.
You would have us believe that they buried the original list to hide the existence of a card with a barrel lift on it, and replaced it with an altered list that still had a card with a barrel lift on it.
As the old axiom says... You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink.
If you can’t come up with evidence, just sling insults and hope that’s good enough.
You have taken one tiny step in acknowledging that the original list was created for the evidence that was being released to FBI agent Drain at midnight 11 /22/63.
I most certainly have not. There is ZERO evidence that this list was written on 11/22 or that it accompanied any release of evidence to the FBI. You completely fabricated that.
You never did produce the original list ( not the altered list) that you said was a Warren Commission exhibit. When are you going to do that?
I never said that, but nice try.
You said:
Huh?? You think I mean?..... Have I not been perfectly clear? There is an evidence inventory list for the evidence that was turned over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight 11 /22/63. ( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents because the conspirators did not want us to see that list.)
You didn’t say that you were referring to the “spent rounds (2)” version of the list.
Then you went on to say:
The reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card
But the list published in the WC exhibits has the exact same description of the exact same card. So this claim is absurd.
-
They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, HAD BEEN SENT TO THE FBI ON 11 /22 /63 .
So they hid a list that says nothing about being written on 11/22/63 and nothing about accompanying a release of evidence to the FBI in order to keep people from thinking that a particular item was released to the FBI on 11/22.
And then they replaced it with another document that has no date and says nothing about accompanying a release of evidence to the FBI so that people would think that the item was released to the FBI on a later date.
Makes perfect sense.
-
So they hid a list that says nothing about being written on 11/22/63 and nothing about accompanying a release of evidence to the FBI in order to keep people from thinking that a particular item was released to the FBI on 11/22.
Hid the list??.... I don't believe they "Hid" the list.... They destroyed every copy they could find but they didn't know that there was a copy in the files of the Texas Rangers. J.Gary Shaw found that copy and printed it in his book. He printed both the original list and the altered copy. Gary Shaw focused on the fact that the original list shows that there were only TWO spent shells... but they typed over the numeral "2" and changed it to a "3" in the altered copy.
And then they replaced it with another document that has no date and says nothing about accompanying a release of evidence to the FBI so that people would think that the item was released to the FBI on a later date.
Makes perfect sense.
they replaced it with another document that has no date and says nothing about accompanying a release of evidence to the FBI
Item # 6 on the altered list says.....Quote..." 1 - .38 cal pistol, 2 inch barrel, S&W, Rev., sand blast finish, brown wooden handles, ser. # 510210. Rel. to FBI agent 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63.
Released to FBI agent, Vince Drain, on 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63.
They wanted it on the altered list, because that altered list was created AFTER the FBI returned the evidence to Dallas...and that was AFTER Day ( with help ) had invented the tale (damned lie) about finding the print but had failed to tell the FBI on 11 /22/63.
-
No Walt. You said that evidence sheet couldn’t be found in the WC exhibits because they didn’t want people to know about the palmprint. And I pointed out that the list in the WC exhibits also mentions the palmprint. Why would they keep that on the list if they altered it to hide the existence of the palmprint. That’s why I said that this fabrication doesn’t even make sense.
There’s still ZERO evidence that this list was created on 11/22 or accompanied the FBI transfer that night.
ZERO.
Here it is John..... I said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells) Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied .... Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote
-
Here it is John..... I said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells)
No, Walt, you didn’t say “the one with two 6.5mm spent shells”. I linked to your exact quote.
The fact the you think the original list was “created on 11/22/63” means nothing.
-
No, Walt, you didn’t say “the one with two 6.5mm spent shells”. I linked to your exact quote.
The fact the you think the original list was “created on 11/22/63” means nothing.
You acknowledge that there are in fact TWO evidence lists.....and the unaltered list "A" has item # 9 listed as--- 6.5 spent rounds ( 2) Whereas the altered copy"B" of that list has # 9 listed as---6.5 spent rounds (3) That second list "B" ( the one with the altered numeral "2" ) also has an addendum to to item number 6....
That addendum says that the evidence was released to FBI agent 11 -22- 63 and again on 11- 26-63 .
So the evidence was released to FBI agent Vince Drain on 11-22-63. The evidence being released was documented with the evidence inventory list "A" and photos of the evidence. Item # 5 on the lists ( Both "A" & "B" ) says quote " homemade paper bag resembling gun case " unquote. One of those photos shows the brown paper bag uncontaminated by finger print powder.... After 11 /22/63 that paper was unrecognizable because the testing for prints had changed it's appearance.
Even you Johnny, should be able to figger out that List "a" was created on 11 /22/63, ( before the paper bag was destroyed) and the evidence along with the 38 cal S& W revolver was released to the FBI on 11/22/63 and again on 11/26 /63.
-
What you keep ignoring, Walt, is that there is no reason whatsoever to think that either of these undated lists ever accompanied evidence transferred to the FBI.
-
What you keep ignoring, Walt, is that there is no reason whatsoever to think that either of these undated lists ever accompanied evidence transferred to the FBI.
Oh really?? Then what the hell do you suggest the lists were created for?
-
A whole lot more than that was turned over to the FBI on 11/22. See the Stovall and Turner Exhibits.
-
A whole lot more than that was turned over to the FBI on 11/22. See the Stovall and Turner Exhibits.
I've never said that the evidence inventory lists were the complete list of the evidence.....There may be more pages of evidence.....???
-
LOL
-
LOL
That seems to be your signature .... L---- Old Lunatic. Not sure about the first word could be lying or laughing ......
-
This thread just keeps giving.
\
Go to Hell, Beck....Unless you have something worthwhile to contribute.
-
What you keep ignoring, Walt, is that there is no reason whatsoever to think that either of these undated lists ever accompanied evidence transferred to the FBI.
Yes because you were talking about the item that says “Partial palm print off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle C 2766”, which, as I keep reminding you, is exactly the same on both lists.
You Keep reminding me?....I'm well aware that both the original list "A" from 11/22 /63, and the altered list "B" from 11/26/63 have the 3 X 5 card listed as item # 14. How could that NOT be true? The altered list was created from a photocopy of the original list.
It seems that you simply don't have what it takes to see the truth about the so called palm print. It's not difficult to see that the FBI and DPD cooked up a tale about Day finding a print on the rifle after he disassembled it, and then lifting that print, and placing it on a 3 X 5 index card. And then neglected to tell the FBI that he had found a print and lifted it.
Here's a list f items that refute that lie.
1) Day could not have seen a print on the side of the barrel that supposedly alerted him to the possibility that there was more of the print ON THE BOTTOM of the barrel. It is impossible for a man's palm print to WRAP HALF WAY AROUND a 5/8 inch diameter tube.... Day said that the print was sticking out from beneath the wooden foregrip so he disassembled the rifle and saw the print on the BOTTOM of the barrel.
2) There is no place where the metal barrel emerges from beneath the wooden stock 3 inches back from the muzzle of the rifle ....As a matter of FACT there is no place where the metal barrel emerges from the wooden foregrip because there is a steel bayonet lug that surrounds both the end of the wooden foregrip and the metal barrel .( see CE 1304 on page 132 WR) That bayonet lug would prevent anybody from grabbing the round metal barrel and depositing a palm print at the place where Day said he saw the print "on the side of the barrel "
3) CE 637 is a photo of that 3 X 5 card that allegedly shows the so called "palm print" on the bottom of the barrel. Day swore that the lift on the 3 X 5 card came from the bottom of the 5/8 inch diameter barrel. But the photo clearly shows the area on the bottom of the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher carcano. The bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip is clearly visible in the photo. This slot was cut into the wooden foregrip to allow the blade of the bayonet to be folded back into the foregrip. ( like the blade of a pocket knife) There is NOTHING on the metal barrel that could have caused those two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo ( CE 637)
4) When the 3 X 5 card was sent to Washington there was nothing of any value see on the cellophane tape.... It was simply a smudge that Lt Day had imagined might be a palm print at the time he lifted it from the wooden foregrip of the carcano. He lifted that smudge just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. A Reporter named Tom Alyea watched Day as he lifted the smudge.
5) Both the DPD and the FBI swore that the 3 x 5 card with the cellophane tape lift on it was not given to the FBI at midnight on 11 /22/63. They both swore that Day never gave the FBI the 3 X 5 card that had a scrawled truncated note on it that read .."off underside of gun barrell near end of foregrip c2766 ", But item number 14 on the evidence inventory list for the midnight transfer of the evidence lists that 3 x 5 card.
6) One of the chief conspirators, Dallas DA Henry Wade lied when he told reporters that Ossssswald's prints had been found on the gun. This was a blatant, bare faced lie. NO identifiable prints ( prints that linked the rifle to any known person) had been found on the rifle. But the lie served as another knot in the noose that
the conspirators were placing around the patsy, Lee Oswald's neck.
7) The DPD were stuck with Henry Wades Lie... and the FBI had the rifle in Washington, and they had found no prints that could be linked to Lee Oswald, so The DPD were compelled to create a tale that would support Henry Wade's lie and at the same time explain why the FBI had not found a print that could be connected to Lee Oswald. Thus the absurd tale about Day disassembling the rifle and finding and lifting the print.
8) The evidence was returned to Dallas.... and the palm print of Lee Oswald ( who had been lynched) was photographically impressed on the 3 X 5 card
-
It seems that you simply don't have what it takes to see the truth about the so called palm print. It's not difficult to see that the FBI and DPD cooked up a tale about Day finding a print on the rifle after he disassembled it, and then lifting that print, and placing it on a 3 X 5 index card. And then neglected to tell the FBI that he had found a print and lifted it.
As I’ve mentioned previously, none of this depends on concocting a silly story about a palm print being released on 11/22 via an undated evidence list.
-
As I’ve mentioned previously, none of this depends on concocting a silly story about a palm print being released on 11/22 via an undated evidence list.
John can you determine what this word is:....Misissippi ? I know it requires speculation,and conjecture, but I think you can figger it out.
-
Get rid of every letter and you’re still coming up with Mississippi. Because “common sense”.
-
Get rid of every letter and you’re still coming up with Mississippi. Because “common sense”.
Let's see, I'll get rid of every letter.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ That looks like J_o_h_n I_a_c_o_l_e_t_t_i.... But who knows ?
-
Let's see, I'll get rid of every letter.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ That looks like J_o_h_n I_a_c_o_l_e_t_t_i.... But who knows ?
Exactly. You could make up a story about what an all-blanks message says, but that wouldn’t make it true.
And even if you got rid of me, it wouldn’t make your fanciful stories true either.
-
Hmm...Let's put that to the test..... If the sheet is 8.5 inches wide then the tape on the sheet is 2.5 inches wide. Iacoletti is going to attack you...He said the tape is 2 inches wide.... Hee, hee,hee....
No, Carl Day said the tape was 2 inches wide. You know, the guy who actually made the card?
-
No, Carl Day said the tape was 2 inches wide. You know, the guy who actually made the card?
So you don't doubt that the tape was 2 inches wide....Lt Day said so... and that establishes it as a fact. Do I have that right John?
Never mind, I'm sure that you won't answer the question... or you'll provide some evasive nonsense.....So let's hear how Mr. Eisenberg described exhibit CE 637
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." ------------ the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766,"
-
So you don't doubt that the tape was 2 inches wide....Lt Day said so... and that establishes it as a fact. Do I have that right John?
No, I don’t know how wide the tape is. If you really want to know, then visit the National Archives and look at the damn thing rather than cherry picking the testimony you like.
I’m just pointing out that this is what Carl Day said he used. Day is not Studebaker.
Never mind, I'm sure that you won't answer the question... or you'll provide some evasive nonsense.....So let's hear how Mr. Eisenberg described exhibit CE 637
So what? Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5? Or are you saying that just because somebody scrawled 11/22/63 on the card, that somehow proves it was actually done on 11/22/63?
-
No, I don’t know how wide the tape is. If you really want to know, then visit the National Archives and look at the damn thing rather than cherry picking the testimony you like.
I’m just pointing out that this is what Carl Day said he used. Day is not Studebaker.
So what? Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5? Or are you saying that just because somebody scrawled 11/22/63 on the card, that somehow proves it was actually done on 11/22/63?
Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5?
Oh. no. Johnny.....That's not What I'm saying........The length of the card is about 1.7 times the width of the card. So if we assign the width to be 3 inches and multiply that by 1.7 ...We find the length to be 5.1 inches... and comparing the width of the tape with the width of the card. We find the the card is roughly three times as wide as the tape ...which means the tape is 1 inch wide....
PS..... I could be wrong, but I believe that it was you who first assigned the 3 X 5 dimensions to the card.... As I recall you referred to it as a 3 X 5 index card.
I'm not sure that I ever knew the dimensions of an index card prior to your post of a year or two ago.
-
Oh. no. Johnny.....That's not What I'm saying........The length of the card is about 1.7 times the width of the card. So if we assign the width to be 3 inches and multiply that by 1.7 ...We find the length to be 5.1 inches... and comparing the width of the tape with the width of the card. We find the the card is roughly three times as wide as the tape ...which means the tape is 1 inch wide....
Sure, Mervin, and if we “assign” the width to be 6 inches, the the length is 10 inches and the tape is 2 inches.
Isn’t math fun?
PS..... I could be wrong, but I believe that it was you who first assigned the 3 X 5 dimensions to the card.... As I recall you referred to it as a 3 X 5 index card.
Yes, you are wrong.
-
Sure, Mervin, and if we “assign” the width to be 6 inches, the the length is 10 inches and the tape is 2 inches.
Isn’t math fun?
Yes, you are wrong.
if we “assign” the width to be 6 inches, the the length is 10 inches and the tape is 2 inches.
So you think that a 6" X 10" card would be called "SMALL" ?
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." ------------ the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766,"
-
if we “assign” the width to be 6 inches, the the length is 10 inches and the tape is 2 inches.
So you think that a 6" X 10" card would be called "SMALL" ?
How should I know? I’m not Eisenberg.
-
How should I know? I’m not Eisenberg.
No, I guess you're not ...And you're no "Einstein" either
-
No, I guess you're not ...And you're no "Einstein" either
Says the guy who uses “common sense” instead of evidence to decide what’s true.
-
Says the guy who uses “common sense” instead of evidence to decide what’s true.
For a person with commonsense ......They would conclude that 6" X 10" would not be a "small white card"
Jerry Organ posted a photo of the bottom of the stock of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano. The bayonet slot is clearly visible , and unless there is something drastically wrong with your eyesight you should be able to see that the so called "palm print" lift on the small white index card was lifted from that area of the WOODEN stock. It was NOT lifted from the metal barrel.
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
-
For a person with commonsense ......They would conclude that 6" X 10" would not be a "small white card"
Jerry Organ posted a photo of the bottom of the stock of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano. The bayonet slot is clearly visible , and unless their is something drastically wrong with your eyesight you should be able to see that the so called "palm print" lift on the small white index card was lifted from that area of the WOODEN stock. It was NOT lifted from the metal barrel.
There you go again, appealing to your “eyesight” and your “commonsense” instead of evidence.
I’m not convinced that this came from the C2766 rifle at all.
-
There you go again, appealing to your “eyesight” and your “commonsense” instead of evidence.
I’m not convinced that this came from the C2766 rifle at all.
Oh. well.....You can lead a stupid jackass to water...but you can't make him drink it.
-
The less evidence Walt has for one of his fabrications, the more insulting he gets.
-
The less evidence Walt has for one of his fabrications, the more insulting he gets.
Insulting?.... Merely quoting an old axiom......
-
if we “assign” the width to be 6 inches, the the length is 10 inches and the tape is 2 inches.
So you think that a 6" X 10" card would be called "SMALL" ?
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." ------------ the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766,"
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
-
For a person with commonsense ......They would conclude that 6" X 10" would not be a "small white card"
Jerry Organ posted a photo of the bottom of the stock of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano. The bayonet slot is clearly visible , and unless there is something drastically wrong with your eyesight you should be able to see that the so called "palm print" lift on the small white index card was lifted from that area of the WOODEN stock. It was NOT lifted from the metal barrel.
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
Detective Day said that he spotted a print on the SIDE of the barrel about 3 inches back from the end of the muzzle end of the wooden stock. The place that Mr organ has circled and drawn a line to....( the smaller orange circle) Is about 1/2 inch back from where the end of the wooden stock would be if the stock were on the barrel.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
in the colored photo the bayonet groove is clearly visible .....The end of the bayonet groove is about 3 1/2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock. So Lt Day guessed fairly accurately when he said he found the print about three inches back from the end of the wooden stock.
The only reason that I can imagine that Day used that 3 X 5 card in fabricating the tale about finding the print on the metal barrel is because he knew that he had sent that card to the FBI and he thought that they would confirm his tale.
-
Detective Day said that he spotted a print on the SIDE of the barrel about 3 inches back from the end of the muzzle end of the wooden stock. The place that Mr organ has circled and drawn a line to....( the smaller orange circle) Is about 1/2 inch back from where the end of the wooden stock would be if the stock were on the barrel.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
in the colored photo the bayonet groove is clearly visible .....The end of the bayonet groove is about 3 1/2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock. So Lt Day guessed fairly accurately when he said he found the print about three inches back from the end of the wooden stock.
The only reason that I can imagine that Day used that 3 X 5 card in fabricating the tale about finding the print on the metal barrel is because he knew that he had sent that card to the FBI and he thought that they would confirm his tale.
Just curious.... Why doesn't anybody but LNer's respond to this thread? I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was lifted from the wooden stock of the rifle... It's so patently clear to me....Why can't others see it?
-
Just curious.... Why doesn't anybody but LNer's respond to this thread? I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was lifted from the wooden stock of the rifle... It's so patently clear to me....Why can't others see it?
I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was lifted from the wooden stock of the rifle...
This statement is very poorly worded..... I should have said... I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was Not there on the night of the coup d e'tat. But Detective Day had lifted what he imagined to be a "palm print" off the wooden stock when he was dusting the rifle for prints in the TSBD that afternoon. Later they decided to use the 3 X 5 card as the lift he made in the crime lab. They used a palm print of Lee Oswald that had been made on a flat surface and placed that lift on the 3 X5 card. There was no identifiable print on that card that Day had created in the TSBD when the card went to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63.
-
I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was lifted from the wooden stock of the rifle...
This statement is very poorly worded..... I should have said... I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was Not there on the night of the coup d e'tat. But Detective Day had lifted what he imagined to be a "palm print" off the wooden stock when he was dusting the rifle for prints in the TSBD that afternoon. Later they decided to use the 3 X 5 card as the lift he made in the crime lab. They used a palm print of Lee Oswald that had been made on a flat surface and placed that lift on the 3 X5 card. There was no identifiable print on that card that Day had created in the TSBD when the card went to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63.
Question:..... Is there anybody who can't see that the image on the 3 X 5 card is the bottom of the WOODEN foregrip with the bayonet groove clearly visible?
-
The silence is deafening.
-
The silence is deafening.
I simply can't understand why people can't see the obvious. Perhaps because I own several carcanos so I can see exactly where the lift originated....I donno, it's perplexing.
-
Detective Day said that he spotted a print on the SIDE of the barrel about 3 inches back from the end of the muzzle end of the wooden stock. The place that Mr organ has circled and drawn a line to....( the smaller orange circle) Is about 1/2 inch back from where the end of the wooden stock would be if the stock were on the barrel.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
in the colored photo the bayonet groove is clearly visible .....The end of the bayonet groove is about 3 1/2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock. So Lt Day guessed fairly accurately when he said he found the print about three inches back from the end of the wooden stock.
The only reason that I can imagine that Day used that 3 X 5 card in fabricating the tale about finding the print on the metal barrel is because he knew that he had sent that card to the FBI and he thought that they would confirm his tale.
-
Just curious.... Why doesn't anybody but LNer's respond to this thread? I'm 100% sure that the "print" on the 3 x 5 card was lifted from the wooden stock of the rifle... It's so patently clear to me....Why can't others see it?
The 3" X 5" white index card was item #14 on the evidence inventory list of the evidence that the DPD released to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63 . Day had found what he imagined to be a palm print on the wooden foregrip of the carcano when he was dusting the rifle for prints just minutes after he picked the rifle UP FROM THE FLOOR The foregrip is a logical place to look for prints on a rifle..... Tom Alyea said that he watched as Day LIFTED THE PRINT ( smudge) ......
-
Give it up, Walt. You’re never going to be able to prove that this list was written on 11/22.
-
Give it up, Walt. You’re never going to be able to prove that this list was written on 11/22.
If I can get enough people to examine the lists....I have no doubt that most readers are intelligent enough to understand that the original list ....the one that lists the rifle as Quote.... " Italian make 6.5 rifle, serial # C2766 , Blue steel, wood stock, BROWN leather sling with 4 X 18 Coated Ordinance Optics Inc. Hollywood California 0 10 Japan telescopic sight"....Unquote.
Those readers will understand that at the time the evidence was released to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22/ 63, Nobody knew that the "Italian Rifle" was called a "Carcano carbine" as the rifle is listed on altered copies of that original list. There are several other items that reveal that the list was originally created to accompany the photos of the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight, but the first item on the list is sufficient for most intelligent folks to see that the DPD originally knew only that the rifle was an Italian rifle..... But by Saturday morning they had been shown an ad by US postal inspector, and FBI spy Harry Holmes that identified the rifle as a "Carcano Carbine"...... Thus when they used a photocopy of the original list from 11/22/ 63, to create the list for 11/26/63, they simply added the words "carcano carbine" to the description of item #1 .....
-
If I can get enough people to examine the lists....I have no doubt that most readers are intelligent enough to understand that the original list ....the one that lists the rifle as Quote.... " Italian make 6.5 rifle, serial # C2766 , Blue steel, wood stock, BROWN leather sling with 4 X 18 Coated Ordinance Optics Inc. Hollywood California 0 10 Japan telescopic sight"....Unquote.
Those readers will understand that at the time the evidence was released to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22/ 63, Nobody knew that the "Italian Rifle" was called a "Carcano carbine" as the rifle is listed on altered copies of that original list. There are several other items that reveal that the list was originally created to accompany the photos of the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight, but the first item on the list is sufficient for most intelligent folks to see that the DPD originally knew only that the rifle was an Italian rifle..... But by Saturday morning they had been shown an ad by US postal inspector, and FBI spy Harry Holmes that identified the rifle as a "Carcano Carbine"...... Thus when they used a photocopy of the original list from 11/22/ 63, to create the list for 11/26/63, they simply added the words "carcano carbine" to the description of item #1 .....
Corrected (Altered) evidence list, now 3 shells.... The list was originally typed up on 11 /22/63 and then a phoyocopy of the original list was used when the DPD sent the evidence back to the FBI on 11/26/63..... This fact can be verified by reading the description of item #6 on the list.
Item #6 on the original list for 11/22/63 said ....Quote:...1- .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel ...unquote
Item #6 on the altered ( photocopy of the original) list for 11/26/63 says .... Quote....1- .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel, S&W, Rev. Sand blast finish, brown wooden handles, Ser# 510210, Rel. to FBI Agent on 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
-
Give it up, Walt. You’re never going to be able to prove that this list was written on 11/22.
Read the description of item # 6
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
-
Read the description of item # 6
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
Why do folks shy away from discussing the evidence lists?
-
Hope springs eternal.
-
Hope springs eternal.
That's true..... But it doesn't answer the question..... Which is : Why do folks shy away from solid evidence that the DPD and the FBI were lying in saying that Lt Day disassembled the carcano and found a palm print on the 5/8" diameter metal barrel of the rifle, but Day never apprised the FBI of his actions. The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14.
-
Because it's not solid evidence.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelist.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelista.jpg)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelisttofbi1.gif)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelisttofbi.gif)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidence%20inventory.jpg)
-
That's true..... But it doesn't answer the question..... Which is : Why do folks shy away from solid evidence that the DPD and the FBI were lying in saying that Lt Day disassembled the carcano and found a palm print on the 5/8" diameter metal barrel of the rifle, but Day never apprised the FBI of his actions. The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14.
"The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14."
They didn't sent the print(s) back to the DPD?
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidence%20inventory.jpg)
-
"The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14."
They didn't sent the print(s) back to the DPD?
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidence%20inventory.jpg)
This is the altered list (Link below) from 11/26/63 ..... I'll see if I can find the original that was typed up on 11-22-63 which is the list that was photocopied to create this altered list which was created for 11 -26-63
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
-
"The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14."
They didn't sent the print(s) back to the DPD?
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidence%20inventory.jpg)
There were nine pieces of evidence that the FBI did not return to the DPD....Five of the nine pieces of evidence were taken from the sixth floor of the TSBD by Lt Day and Detective Studebaker.
Those five items were; (1) 1 piece of cardboard containing palm print of subject ( this was the NW corner of the box that they imagined was the sniper's seat, and Day labeled it "LEFT" palm of LHO which of course would have had LHO facing NORTH...not south.) (2) There were three cardboard boxes labeled A,B, & C ,and(3) 1 cardboard box, empty, size : 11 3/4" X 13" X 17 1/2" from which thumb print of suspect was found. (4) 1 PARTIAL PALM PRINT-- " OFF UNDERSIDE OF BARREL NEAR END OF FOREGRIP "-- on rifle # C2766. and (5) 3 negatives of partial prints "found on trigger housing of rifle ser. # C2766
The FBI did not return item # 5...the negatives of the partial prints from the trigger guard...and the did not return item #4...the Partial palm print "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C2766.
-
This is the altered list from 11/26/63 ..... I'll see if I can find the original that was typed up on 11-22-63 which is the list that was photocopied to create this altered list which was created for 11 -26-63
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338192/
"This is the altered list from 11/26/63"
It's typed on the top of the list that it was received from DPD on 1/22.
"I'll see if I can find the original that was typed up on 11-22-63 which is the list that was photocopied to create this altered list which was created for 11 -26-63"
I not following you. Please post the list and explain again how you came to these conclusions.
-
"This is the altered list from 11/26/63"
It's typed on the top of the list that it was received from DPD on 1/22.
"I'll see if I can find the original that was typed up on 11-22-63 which is the list that was photocopied to create this altered list which was created for 11 -26-63"
I not following you. Please post the list and explain again how you came to these conclusions.
Do you have the book "Cover -up" by J. Gary Shaw ?...... Shaw published the original evidence list which was typed up on 11-22-63.....Shaw focused on the fact that on 11-22-63 the DPD had only TWO spent 6.5mm carcano shells.... But there are other things that are far more important on the list.
-
"The evidence list that itemizes the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 clearly lists that so called "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) as item # 14."
They didn't sent the print(s) back to the DPD?
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidence%20inventory.jpg)
They didn't sent the print(s) back to the DPD?
I believe they DID send the 3 X 5 index card back to the DPD but they did it secretly..... Because it's still on the list for 11-26-63.
We know that the FBI lab examined the negatives of the partial finger prints on the trigger guard (item #15) on 11-23-63 and the 3X5 index card (item # 14 ) is listed immediately above the negatives. Also the list for 11-22-63 lists "FRAGMENTS (plural) taken f rom the body of Governor Connally " whereas the list of items being returned to the DPD lists only a single Fragment....
-
Do you have the book "Cover -up" by J. Gary Shaw ?...... Shaw published the original evidence list which was typed up on 11-22-63.....Shaw focused on the fact that on 11-22-63 the DPD had only TWO spent 6.5mm carcano shells.... But there are other things that are far more important on the list.
Shaw published a list, all right. But there's nothing to indicate that it was typed up on 11-22-63.
-
Shaw published a list, all right. But there's nothing to indicate that it was typed up on 11-22-63.
Could you post that list, Thank you.....
-
Sure, for a small finder's fee!
-
Sure, for a small finder's fee!
But you didn't find it.... J Gary Shaw did. But I thought that you'd like to post it so you can point out where you think Gary Shaw was wrong.
-
But you didn't find it.... J Gary Shaw did. But I thought that you'd like to post it so you can point out where you think Gary Shaw was wrong.
When did Gary Shaw say that the list was typed up on 11-22-63?
-
When did Gary Shaw say that the list was typed up on 11-22-63?
Read Shaw's book...... He said that the list was typed up to accompany the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63, and that original list showed that there were only TWO spent shells. And we know that this is true.... ( Later the DPD and the FBI covered up this fact and claimed that Fritz kept one of the spent shells so when the DPD released the evidence for the second time on 11-26-63 they included the third shell and altered the original evidence inventory list by changing the numeral 2 into a 3.....
Since we know that the list was created to accompany the photos of the evidence being released and item number 5 on the list says: Quote--- 1 Homemade paper bag resembling gun case ---unquote. And we also know that the FBI destroyed the paper bag in their testing on 11-23=63, we can know that the evidence photo and the original list were created BEFORE the bag was destroyed on 11-23-63.
And in addition to this solid evidence, item number 6 on the altered list that was altered on 11-26-63 says that item #6 is quote ...1 ,38 cal. pistol, 2 inch barrel, S&W, Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles, ser. #510210, Rel. to FBI on 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63....unquote
So the typist acknowledged that the .38 S&W pistol was released to the FBI on 11-22-63 .....and on the original unaltered evidence list the pistol was simply listed as quote.... 1 .38 cal. pistol, 2" barrel..... unquote
-
When did Gary Shaw say that the list was typed up on 11-22-63?
Did you read Shaw's book?
-
Did you read Shaw's book?
Mr Iacolletti.... Where are you?
-
Read Shaw's book...... He said that the list was typed up to accompany the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63, and that original list showed that there were only TWO spent shells. And we know that this is true.... ( Later the DPD and the FBI covered up this fact and claimed that Fritz kept one of the spent shells so when the DPD released the evidence for the second time on 11-26-63 they included the third shell and altered the original evidence inventory list by changing the numeral 2 into a 3.....
Since we know that the list was created to accompany the photos of the evidence being released and item number 5 on the list says: Quote--- 1 Homemade paper bag resembling gun case ---unquote. And we also know that the FBI destroyed the paper bag in their testing on 11-23=63, we can know that the evidence photo and the original list were created BEFORE the bag was destroyed on 11-23-63.
And in addition to this solid evidence, item number 6 on the altered list that was altered on 11-26-63 says that item #6 is quote ...1 ,38 cal. pistol, 2 inch barrel, S&W, Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles, ser. #510210, Rel. to FBI on 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63....unquote
So the typist acknowledged that the .38 S&W pistol was released to the FBI on 11-22-63 .....and on the original unaltered evidence list the pistol was simply listed as quote.... 1 .38 cal. pistol, 2" barrel..... unquote
"original list showed that there were only TWO spent shells."
I don't think this is the list, from Shaw's book, you're referencing but it does show "2 spent 6.5 casings" that were released to Vince Drain of the FBI.
If I remember right Day came up with a 3rd hull later. Said he hung onto it for investigative purposes.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fbi20takes20evidence.jpg)
-
"original list showed that there were only TWO spent shells."
I don't think this is the list, from Shaw's book, you're referencing but it does show "2 spent 6.5 casings" that were released to Vince Drain of the FBI.
If I remember right Day came up with a 3rd hull later. Said he hung onto it for investigative purposes.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fbi20takes20evidence.jpg)
I don't think this is the list, from Shaw's book, you're referencing but it does show "2 spent 6.5 casings" that were released to Vince Drain of the FBI.
You're right that is not the list that was published in Gary Shaw's book.... But it is a valuable source of information .....
There can be no doubt that there were only TWO spent shells found beneath the window. That's what was turned over to the FBI at midnight, as shown in the evidence inventory photo. ( But Roger Craig screwed up that evidence by swearing that he saw THREE shells " lying side by side no more than an inch apart ")
The List that was published on page 159 of J. Gary Shaw's book Cover Up Is the basis for the altered list that seen on page 268 of Vol. 24 ( CE 2003)
The police clerk used a photocopy of the original list from 11-22-63 and altered it to create the list for 11-26-63.
-
Did you read Shaw's book?
I have a copy of "Cover Up". On what page does he say that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22?
-
I have a copy of "Cover Up". On what page does he say that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22?
Oh My!!.... I read the book 30 years ago.....and you think my memory is good enough to remember the page number?? If I read the book last week I probably wouldn't remember the page number.
-
Oh My!!.... I read the book 30 years ago.....and you think my memory is good enough to remember the page number?? If I read the book last week I probably wouldn't remember the page number.
You remembered the page number that the evidence list was on!
I'll answer for you. Shaw doesn't say anywhere that the evidence list was typed on 11/22.
-
You remembered the page number that the evidence list was on!
I'll answer for you. Shaw doesn't say anywhere that the evidence list was typed on 11/22.
You remembered the page number that the evidence list was on!
Yes I remember it after reading it from the photocopy that I have of page 159 of Cover up......
-
You remembered the page number that the evidence list was on!
I'll answer for you. Shaw doesn't say anywhere that the evidence list was typed on 11/22.
You should post the original evidence inventory list..... And embarrass me, by proving that there is no date on that document.
-
You should post the original evidence inventory list..... And embarrass me, by proving that there is no date on that document.
You should post it to back up your bloviating.
-
You should post it to back up your bloviating.
I can't do that.... I don't have the equipment.
-
That's what she said.
-
That's what she said.
But there was a time......when she was astonished at the equipment.....
-
That's what she said.
:D
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
Thank you....Now we can see that this list was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63.
Let's look at item number 1 ....
1 Italian make 6.5rifle, serial # C 2766, blue steel,wood stock, brown leather sling, with 4 X 18 coated ordinance Optics Inc., Hollywood California, 0 10Japan telescopic sight.
Then five days later on 11-26-63 the clerk used a photocopy of this original list and altered it to reflect information they had learned between midnight 11-22-63 and 11-26-63. They had learned that the rifle wasn't simply an "Italian make 6.5 rifle..... They had learned that it was a CARCANO CARBINE....so they added that to the photocopy of the original list.
-
Thank you....Now we can see that this list was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63.
...and how exactly can "we see" this?
-
...and how exactly can "we see" this?
It's elementary my Dear Mr. Iacoletti...... First off....extract your head and open your eyes.
-
It's elementary my Dear Mr. Iacoletti...... First off....extract your head and open your eyes.
So, it's just another one of your unsubstantiated assumptions. Got it.
-
So, it's just another one of your unsubstantiated assumptions. Got it.
Perhaps you have trouble understanding " Let's take item number 1".... IOW Let's take it one baby step at a time , so that you can keep up.
On the original sheet for 11-22-63 what does it say about item # 1 ?
" Found by Dept. Sheriff Weitzman on the sixth floor, 411 Elm, 5' from west wall and 8' from stairway."
This tells us that Seymour Weitzman discovered a 6.5 Italian make rifle, and NOT A 7.65 MAUSER. The rifle was EIGHT FEET from the stairs.....or IOW the model 91/38 6.5mm Mannlicher carcano was about 5 feet south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the east/ west aisle at the top of the stairs. It was NOT jammed between boxes of books about three feet from the stairs.
Do you understand this elementary information?
-
Perhaps you have trouble understanding " Let's take item number 1".... IOW Let's take it one baby step at a time , so that you can keep up.
On the original sheet for 11-22-63 what does it say about item # 1 ?
" Found by Dept. Sheriff Weitzman on the sixth floor, 411 Elm, 5' from west wall and 8' from stairway."
This tells us that Seymour Weitzman discovered a 6.5 Italian make rifle, and NOT A 7.65 MAUSER. The rifle was EIGHT FEET from the stairs.....or IOW the model 91/38 6.5mm Mannlicher carcano was about 5 feet south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the east/ west aisle at the top of the stairs. It was NOT jammed between boxes of books about three feet from the stairs.
Do you understand this elementary information?
What does any of that have to do with your claim that this list was typed up on 11/22?
-
What does any of that have to do with your claim that this list was typed up on 11/22?
Patience Johnny, Patience..... We'll get to that one step at a time.
Item #2 is: ....1 Green and brown Blanket And sure enough the blanket is shown in the evidence inventory photo......
Item #3 is: ... 1 .38 slug
Item #4 is ....Button Taken from body of JD Tippit at Methodist Hospital by Dr Paul Moellenhoff at 1:30 pm. He gave THEM ( slug and Button) to RA Davenport
So the slug was removed from Tippit's body at 1:30.....So obviously Tippits body had to have arrived at the hospital BEFORE 1:30..... Which indicates that Tippit was shot earlier than 1:16 , because There would not have been enough time to report the shooting....call an ambulance,. and transport Tippit and unload him at the hospital, all in about ten minutes..
The .38 slug and the brass button are shown in the evidence photo.
-
What evidence photo are you referring to? And is Day's magic partial palmprint card in this evidence photo?
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelist.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelista.jpg)
-
What evidence photo are you referring to? And is Day's magic partial palmprint card in this evidence photo?
Patience Johnny, Patience .....
Item #5 is 1 Home made paper bag resembling gun case. Found by Johnson and Montgomery at 411 Elm and brought to Crime lab.
And sure enough the paper bag is shown clean as can be in the evidence photo... but on 11 -23- 63 the FBI ruined that nice clean paper bag and turned it a dark brown. So since the paper bag is NOT dark brown we can know that this photo was taken BEFORE the FBI received it in Washington 11-23-63.
-
Patience Johnny, Patience .....
Item #5 is 1 Home made paper bag resembling gun case. Found by Johnson and Montgomery at 411 Elm and brought to Crime lab.
And sure enough the paper bag is shown clean as can be in the evidence photo... but on 11 -23- 63 the FBI ruined that nice clean paper bag and turned it a dark brown. So since the paper bag is NOT dark brown we can know that this photo was taken BEFORE the FBI received it in Washington 11-23-63.
Next item on the evidence inventory list.... Item #6....! .38 cal pistol, 2" barrel. Now, since Gary Craig has been kind enough to post the altered list, let's look at item #6 on the altered list and compare it with the original list.
On the altered list item # 6 says .... 1 .38 cal. pistol, 2" barrel, S&W, Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles , ser. # 510210. Rel. to FBI agent 11-22-63 and again 11-26-63.
It can't get much clearer than this..... Released to FBI agent on 11-22-63 and again on 11-26-63. This statement corroborates the fact that the .38 cal pistol was released to the FBI on 11 -22- 63 ....and sure enough the S&W pistol is seen in the evidence inventory photo of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11 -22- 63.
Do you still doubt that the original evidence inventory list was typed up on 11 -22-63 to accompany the photo of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11 - 22-63 ??
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelisttofbi.gif)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelisttofbi.gif)
Thanks for your effort, Gary.....But this list is irrelevant ..... The ONLY list we are discussing is the original list that was typed up in conjunction with the evidence inventory photo....
I sincerely hope that you can see that even though the original list is not dated....It was created on 11-22-63. Is this clear to you?
-
Thanks for your effort, Gary.....But this list is irrelevant ..... The ONLY list we are discussing is the original list that was typed up in conjunction with the evidence inventory photo....
I sincerely hope that you can see that even though the original list is not dated....It was created on 11-22-63. Is this clear to you?
Clear as mud.
-
Clear as mud.
Well extract your head.... I'm sure that will help.
Here's the original evidence inventory list that was typed up in conjunction with the evidence photo of the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
Notice item number 5 on the list .... "1 Home made paper bag resembling gun case."
In the evidence photo that paper bag is shown in good condition....but on 11-23-63 that paper bag no longer existed in the condition that it is seen in the photo, because the FBI lab destroyed it in their testing it for finger prints. So it's elementary that the photo and the original inventory list were created on 11-22-63.....
Now then, I believe we are at item # 7 on the list....which says....Bullet fragments taken from body of Governor Connally .
Item # 8 says....."Live round 6.5".... And that live round is shown in the photo.....
Then we come to an interesting item ........ item number 9....
item #9 .... " 6.5 spent rounds (2) " "Recovered by Dept. Sheriff Luke Mooney at 411 Elm, 6th floor, southeast window."
So originally on 11-22-63 there were only TWO (2) spent shells that were sent to the FBI on 11-22-63, They are shown in the evidence photo in the lower left hand corner. Later the conspirators changed the number of spent shells to THREE (3) but on 11-22-63 there were only TWO. Which is another indicator that the original list was typed on 11-22-63.
-
Do you still doubt that the original evidence inventory list was typed up on 11 -22-63 to accompany the photo of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11 - 22-63 ??
Yes. And you’ve done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that it was.
-
Yes. And you’ve done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that it was.
What more could I do, I don't have a head extraction device......
-
What more could I do, I don't have a head extraction device......
Well for one thing, you could come up with even a speck of evidence rather than just insisting over and over again that it’s true.
-
Well for one thing, you could come up with even a speck of evidence rather than just insisting over and over again that it’s true.
If your common sense doesn't tell you that both the FBI and the DPD would have required documented evidence to verify the evidence that was being transferred, then you simply lack commonsense.....And if you can't see that the original evidence inventory list was typed up on 11-22-63 simply by reading the list and looking at the photo then you're simply obtuse.
-
Thanks for your effort, Gary.....But this list is irrelevant ..... The ONLY list we are discussing is the original list that was typed up in conjunction with the evidence inventory photo....
I sincerely hope that you can see that even though the original list is not dated....It was created on 11-22-63. Is this clear to you?
No.
Abstruse and opaque.
-
No.
Abstruse and opaque.
I am sorry to hear that.... Why is it that what should be so clear and easy to understand is Abstruse ?? Let's examine item # 5 .....
Item #5 is "1 Home made paper bag resembling gun case. Found by Johnson and Montgomery at 411 Elm and brought to Crime lab."
And sure enough the paper bag is shown clean as can be in the evidence photo... but on 11 -23- 63 the FBI ruined that nice clean paper bag and turned it a dark brown. So since the paper bag is NOT dark brown we can know that this photo was taken BEFORE the FBI received it in Washington 11-23-63.
-
I am sorry to hear that.... Why is it that what should be so clear and easy to understand is Abstruse ?? Let's examine item # 5 .....
Item #5 is "1 Home made paper bag resembling gun case. Found by Johnson and Montgomery at 411 Elm and brought to Crime lab."
And sure enough the paper bag is shown clean as can be in the evidence photo... but on 11 -23- 63 the FBI ruined that nice clean paper bag and turned it a dark brown. So since the paper bag is NOT dark brown we can know that this photo was taken BEFORE the FBI received it in Washington 11-23-63.
That may prove the photo was taken before the FBI used silver nitrate on the alleged gun case, but it doesn't prove when the evidence list
was typed up.
-
That may prove the photo was taken before the FBI used silver nitrate on the alleged gun case, but it doesn't prove when the evidence list
was typed up.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
OK.....Then when do you think the list that lists only TWO spent shells (item # 9) was typed up?
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
OK.....Then when do you think the list that lists only TWO spent shells (item # 9) was typed up?
Well the first question you need to ask yourself, if you're trying to discern the date of the evidence list from it's content, is when did the DPD know the results of the parrafin tests on LHO's hands and face? If I remember correctly they waited 10 or 11 hours after his arrest to perform the tests. (That's past midnight) I think there would be a lag time between when they were done and when they would know the results. Some type of chemical analysis is needed, probably.
The last sentence on the list reads:
"Parrafin test made on Oswald, was positive on both hands and negative on face."
-
Well the first question you need to ask yourself, if you're trying to discern the date of the evidence list from it's content, is when did the DPD know the results of the parrafin tests on LHO's hands and face? If I remember correctly they waited 10 or 11 hours after his arrest to perform the tests. (That's past midnight) I think there would be a lag time between when they were done and when they would know the results. Some type of chemical analysis is needed, probably.
The last sentence on the list reads:
"Parrafin test made on Oswald, was positive on both hands and negative on face."
You're wrong....a Paraffin test needs to be taken ASAP....and the DPD took the tests at about 4:30.....and it takes about five minutes to determine if there are nitrates present....
when do you think the list that lists only TWO spent shells (item # 9) was typed up?
-
Uh....hate to tell you this, but that's a left hand print. No doubt about it.
-
Uh....hate to tell you this, but that's a left hand print. No doubt about it.
What are you referring to??
-
You're wrong....a Paraffin test needs to be taken ASAP....and the DPD took the tests at about 4:30.....and it takes about five minutes to determine if there are nitrates present....
when do you think the list that lists only TWO spent shells (item # 9) was typed up?
You are full of shyte!
W.E. Barnes took the paraffin casts of LHO's hands and cheek.
He started sometime after 6pm on 11/22/63.
He finished about 9pm. on 11/22/63.
The casts were stored in a locked evidence room on the 4th floor at DPD until the following morning.
At that time, Saturday morning, they went to a police labratory at Parkland Hospital for analysis.
So the earliest they would have known the results would have been Saturday morning.
The earliest that evidence list could have been typed is therefore Saturday morning 11/23/63.
You need to learn the evidence you're talking about before inserting your foot in mouth.
TESTIMONY OF W. E. BARNES
The testimony of W. E. Barnes was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
~Snip~
Mr. BARNES. Later we went to the third floor, to the office of Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN. What did you go to Captain Fritz' office for?
Mr. BARNES. To make a paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's hand.
Mr. BELIN. About when would this have been, approximately, if you know?
Mr. BARNES. I tell you, the time didn't mean anything there, and it was after I returned to the city hall, and after 6 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after 6 o'clock?
~snip~
Mr. BARNES. I walked out of Captain Fritz' office, and I had a couple of patrolmen trying to weed their way through the news media so that I could have walking room to get to the elevator to get back to the fourth floor, the ID bureau.
Mr. BELIN. The news media had the third floor pretty well jammed at that time?
Mr. BARNES. I would say it was pretty well Jammed.
Mr. BELIN. About what time of the night was this?
Mr. BARNES. Approximately 9 o'clock, I would say, approximately.
~Snip~
Mr. BELIN. You then went up to the fourth floor to the lab, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. That is true.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BARNES. I initialed the cast, sealed them, and placed them in our locked evidence room.
Mr. BELIN. Where did they go after that?
Mr. BARNES. They go to our city-county laboratory for analysis.
Mr. BELIN. Where is that city-county laboratory?
Mr. BARNES. At Parkland Hospital.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when they went there?
Mr. BARNES. The following morning.
~snip~
-
You are full of shyte!
W.E. Barnes took the paraffin casts of LHO's hands and cheek.
He started sometime after 6pm on 11/22/63.
He finished about 9pm. on 11/22/63.
The casts were stored in a locked evidence room on the 4th floor at DPD until the following morning.
At that time, Saturday morning, they went to a police labratory at Parkland Hospital for analysis.
So the earliest they would have known the results would have been Saturday morning.
The earliest that evidence list could have been typed is therefore Saturday morning 11/23/63.
You need to learn the evidence you're talking about before inserting your foot in mouth.
TESTIMONY OF W. E. BARNES
The testimony of W. E. Barnes was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
~Snip~
Mr. BARNES. Later we went to the third floor, to the office of Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN. What did you go to Captain Fritz' office for?
Mr. BARNES. To make a paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's hand.
Mr. BELIN. About when would this have been, approximately, if you know?
Mr. BARNES. I tell you, the time didn't mean anything there, and it was after I returned to the city hall, and after 6 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after 6 o'clock?
~snip~
Mr. BARNES. I walked out of Captain Fritz' office, and I had a couple of patrolmen trying to weed their way through the news media so that I could have walking room to get to the elevator to get back to the fourth floor, the ID bureau.
Mr. BELIN. The news media had the third floor pretty well jammed at that time?
Mr. BARNES. I would say it was pretty well Jammed.
Mr. BELIN. About what time of the night was this?
Mr. BARNES. Approximately 9 o'clock, I would say, approximately.
~Snip~
Mr. BELIN. You then went up to the fourth floor to the lab, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. That is true.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BARNES. I initialed the cast, sealed them, and placed them in our locked evidence room.
Mr. BELIN. Where did they go after that?
Mr. BARNES. They go to our city-county laboratory for analysis.
Mr. BELIN. Where is that city-county laboratory?
Mr. BARNES. At Parkland Hospital.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when they went there?
Mr. BARNES. The following morning.
~snip~
I was wrong about the time that they performed the paraffin test ..... I was thinking of the finger printing.
Gordon Shanklin FBI agent in charge at Dallas, said today that ... a paraffin, used to determine whether a person has fired a weapon recently, was administered to Oswald shortly after he was apprehended Friday one hour after the assassination. It showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle remained on on Oswald's cheek and hands. New York Times , 11-25-63
Shanklin was lying.....The paraffin tests exonerated Lee Oswald ..... They showed that he had NOT fired that leaky old Carcano on Friday 11-22-63.
-
Well the first question you need to ask yourself, if you're trying to discern the date of the evidence list from it's content, is when did the DPD know the results of the parrafin tests on LHO's hands and face? If I remember correctly they waited 10 or 11 hours after his arrest to perform the tests. (That's past midnight) I think there would be a lag time between when they were done and when they would know the results. Some type of chemical analysis is needed, probably.
The last sentence on the list reads:
"Parrafin test made on Oswald, was positive on both hands and negative on face."
Would you offer an opinion about the typewriter that was used to enter that addendum at the bottom of the evidence list? Do you think that a different typewriter was used to make that entry ?
-
Would you offer an opinion about the typewriter that was used to enter that addendum at the bottom of the evidence list? Do you think that a different typewriter was used to make that entry ?
"Would you offer an opinion about the typewriter that was used to enter that addendum at the bottom of the evidence list?"
I think you should heed the advice you normally dole out around here.
Extract your cranium from your anus.
Pull your head out.
-
"Would you offer an opinion about the typewriter that was used to enter that addendum at the bottom of the evidence list?"
I think you should heed the advice you normally dole out around here.
Extract your cranium from your anus.
Pull your head out.
So it's obvious to you also that the addendum that was added to the original evidence list was added by using a different typewriter..... I'm not surprised, because even a person with impaired vision could see that the addendum was added AFTER 11-26-63. Since you were good enough to post both the original evidence list ( the one that has only TWO spent shells listed) and the altered list that was altered on 11-26-63 ( the numeral 2 changed to the numeral 3)we can clearly see that the addendum about the paraffin test had not yet been added to the original list, because the addendum is not there on the altered list.
The altered list that was created on 11-26-63 is seen below. Please note that the paraffin addendum is not there.....
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelist.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/evidencelista.jpg)
And I thank you for your support.
-
"Would you offer an opinion about the typewriter that was used to enter that addendum at the bottom of the evidence list?"
I think you should heed the advice you normally dole out around here.
Extract your cranium from your anus.
Pull your head out.
Ok, now that we've established that the addendum about the paraffin test was added to the original evidence sheet sometime after 11-26-63 ......Let's get back to Item number 9.... Why are there only two spent shells listed ?? You may recall that the first note that Lt Day made about the evidence he referred to the rifle was a 6.5 LEVER action, and just TWO spent shells.
-
Ok, now that we've established that the addendum about the paraffin test was added to the original evidence sheet sometime after 11-26-63 ......Let's get back to Item number 9.... Why are there only two spent shells listed ?? You may recall that the first note that Lt Day made about the evidence he referred to the rifle was a 6.5 LEVER action, and just TWO spent shells.
I don't think any reasonable person will argue that the original list was NOT created on 11-22-63. It obviously was created to accompany the photos that were taken of the evidence that was being released to the FBI.
And the so called "PALM PRINT" is on that list. ( item #14)
-
I don't think any reasonable person will argue that the original list was NOT created on 11-22-63.
Speaking of "reason", there is NO reason to believe that this undated list was created on 11-22-63.
It obviously was created to accompany the photos that were taken of the evidence that was being released to the FBI.
There's nothing "obvious" about it. It's a Walt fabrication. The magic partial palm print was not released to the FBI on 11/22. It was mailed in 4 days later.
-
Speaking of "reason", there is NO reason to believe that this undated list was created on 11-22-63.
There's nothing "obvious" about it. It's a Walt fabrication. The magic partial palm print was not released to the FBI on 11/22. It was mailed in 4 days later.
You're making a fool of yourself. A reasonable person who can set his animosity aside can clearly see that the original list was typed up on 11-22-63.
-
You're making a fool of yourself. A reasonable person who can set his animosity aside can clearly see that the original list was typed up on 11-22-63.
Calling your fabrication "reasonable" doesn't make it anything more than a fabrication.
-
Calling your fabrication "reasonable" doesn't make it anything more than a fabrication.
I've taken you by the hand and showed you that the list was created on 11-22-63 ....but as the old saw says...." It's possible to lead a dumb jackass to water, but you can't make him drink. Or as the bible says..... None is so blind as he who refuses to see.
-
I've taken you by the hand and showed you that the list was created on 11-22-63 ....but as the old saw says...." It's possible to lead a dumb jackass to water, but you can't make him drink. Or as the bible says..... None is so blind as he who refuses to see.
You haven't shown squat. You just claimed that the list was typed up on 11/22, provided no evidence for that, and then pretended that insults constitute evidence. As usual.
-
You're making a fool of yourself. A reasonable person who can set his animosity aside can clearly see that the original list was typed up on 11-22-63.
Doesn't a typewriter let you type any date you want?
-
I was wrong about the time that they performed the paraffin test ..... I was thinking of the finger printing.
I don't think any reasonable person will argue that the original list was NOT created on 11-22-63.
Then what makes you so sure about the original list?
-
Then what makes you so sure about the original list?
I've already went through the list item by item .... and pointed out why that list was created on 11-22-63.....just review this thread.
-
I've already went through the list item by item .... and pointed out why that list was created on 11-22-63.....just review this thread.
No, all you did was point out some things on the list that were also in some unspecified evidence photo that you never posted. I'm not sure how that tells you anything about when this list was typed up.
-
No, all you did was point out some things on the list that were also in some unspecified evidence photo that you never posted. I'm not sure how that tells you anything about when this list was typed up.
Are you admitting that you're so ignorant and uninformed that you've never seen the evidence photo that shows all of the items that are on the list?
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
-
Ok, now that we've established that the addendum about the paraffin test was added to the original evidence sheet sometime after 11-26-63 ......Let's get back to Item number 9.... Why are there only two spent shells listed ?? You may recall that the first note that Lt Day made about the evidence he referred to the rifle was a 6.5 LEVER action, and just TWO spent shells.
"Ok, now that we've established that the addendum about the paraffin test was added to the original evidence sheet sometime after 11-26-63"
Wrong!
The paraffin casts from LHO's face and hands weren't analyzed until 11/23/63.
Since the results from those casts are included in the list that means the earliest it was typed was 11/23/63.
W.E. Barnes took the paraffin casts of LHO's hands and cheek.
He started sometime after 6pm on 11/22/63.
He finished about 9pm. on 11/22/63.
The casts were stored in a locked evidence room on the 4th floor at DPD until the following morning.
At that time, Saturday morning, they went to a police labo
ratory at Parkland Hospital for analysis.
So the earliest they would have known the results would have been Saturday morning.
The earliest that evidence list could have been typed is therefore Saturday morning 11/23/63.
You need to learn the evidence you're talking about before inserting your foot in mouth.
TESTIMONY OF W. E. BARNES
The testimony of W. E. Barnes was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
~Snip~
Mr. BARNES. Later we went to the third floor, to the office of Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN. What did you go to Captain Fritz' office for?
Mr. BARNES. To make a paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's hand.
Mr. BELIN. About when would this have been, approximately, if you know?
Mr. BARNES. I tell you, the time didn't mean anything there, and it was after I returned to the city hall, and after 6 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after 6 o'clock?
~snip~
Mr. BARNES. I walked out of Captain Fritz' office, and I had a couple of patrolmen trying to weed their way through the news media so that I could have walking room to get to the elevator to get back to the fourth floor, the ID bureau.
Mr. BELIN. The news media had the third floor pretty well jammed at that time?
Mr. BARNES. I would say it was pretty well Jammed.
Mr. BELIN. About what time of the night was this?
Mr. BARNES. Approximately 9 o'clock, I would say, approximately.
~Snip~
Mr. BELIN. You then went up to the fourth floor to the lab, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. That is true.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BARNES. I initialed the cast, sealed them, and placed them in our locked evidence room.
Mr. BELIN. Where did they go after that?
Mr. BARNES. They go to our city-county laboratory for analysis.
Mr. BELIN. Where is that city-county laboratory?
Mr. BARNES. At Parkland Hospital.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when they went there?
Mr. BARNES. The following morning.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
-
Are you admitting that you're so ignorant and uninformed that you've never seen the evidence photo that shows all of the items that are on the list?
All the items on the list, huh? Perhaps you can identify where in this photo you see the rifle, the cardboard boxes, the paraffin test, the Connally bullet fragments, and Day's magic partial palmprint.
-
Walt, you've got to stop believing your lying eyes. Falsifying evidence is what conspirators do. You can't trust any of it because you have no facts, just assumptions. Your best bet is to assume fraud 1st and try to disprove it, instead of buying into the fraud hook line and sinker.
-
"Ok, now that we've established that the addendum about the paraffin test was added to the original evidence sheet sometime after 11-26-63"
Wrong!
The paraffin casts from LHO's face and hands weren't analyzed until 11/23/63.
Since the results from those casts are included in the list that means the earliest it was typed was 11/23/63.
W.E. Barnes took the paraffin casts of LHO's hands and cheek.
He started sometime after 6pm on 11/22/63.
He finished about 9pm. on 11/22/63.
The casts were stored in a locked evidence room on the 4th floor at DPD until the following morning.
At that time, Saturday morning, they went to a police labo
ratory at Parkland Hospital for analysis.
So the earliest they would have known the results would have been Saturday morning.
The earliest that evidence list could have been typed is therefore Saturday morning 11/23/63.
You need to learn the evidence you're talking about before inserting your foot in mouth.
TESTIMONY OF W. E. BARNES
The testimony of W. E. Barnes was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
~Snip~
Mr. BARNES. Later we went to the third floor, to the office of Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN. What did you go to Captain Fritz' office for?
Mr. BARNES. To make a paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's hand.
Mr. BELIN. About when would this have been, approximately, if you know?
Mr. BARNES. I tell you, the time didn't mean anything there, and it was after I returned to the city hall, and after 6 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after 6 o'clock?
~snip~
Mr. BARNES. I walked out of Captain Fritz' office, and I had a couple of patrolmen trying to weed their way through the news media so that I could have walking room to get to the elevator to get back to the fourth floor, the ID bureau.
Mr. BELIN. The news media had the third floor pretty well jammed at that time?
Mr. BARNES. I would say it was pretty well Jammed.
Mr. BELIN. About what time of the night was this?
Mr. BARNES. Approximately 9 o'clock, I would say, approximately.
~Snip~
Mr. BELIN. You then went up to the fourth floor to the lab, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. That is true.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BARNES. I initialed the cast, sealed them, and placed them in our locked evidence room.
Mr. BELIN. Where did they go after that?
Mr. BARNES. They go to our city-county laboratory for analysis.
Mr. BELIN. Where is that city-county laboratory?
Mr. BARNES. At Parkland Hospital.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when they went there?
Mr. BARNES. The following morning.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/spentrounds2.jpg)
WRONG!! WAKE UP!!... and start using your head...... It's obvious that a photocopy of the original list that was created on 11-22-63 was used to create the evidence list for 11-26-63. ( Even a 10 year old can understand that, by comparing the TWO lists..( the original from 11-22-63, and the altered photocopy of that list that was altered on 11-26-63) Now since the altered copy from 11-26-63, DOES NOT HAVE the addendum about the Paraffin test...then obviously that addendum on the original list had to have been added to the original list AFTER 11-26-63. And it's very obvious that the addendum about the paraffin test was added by using a different typewriter.
-
WRONG!! WAKE UP!!... and start using your head...... It's obvious that a photocopy of the original list that was created on 11-22-63 was used to create the evidence list for 11-26-63. ( Even a 10 year old can understand that, by comparing the TWO lists..( the original from 11-22-63, and the altered photocopy of that list that was altered on 11-26-63) Now since the altered copy from 11-26-63, DOES NOT HAVE the addendum about the Paraffin test...then obviously that addendum on the original list had to have been added to the original list AFTER 11-26-63. And it's very obvious that the addendum about the paraffin test was added by using a different typewriter.
The paraffin cast results were left off the second evidence list because the cheek cast was negative and showed he hadn't fired a rifle.
Why would they go back and add it to the 1st list after the exculpatory results were known?
Dump the bong water in the toilet. It's not for drinking.
-
The paraffin cast results were left off the second evidence list because the cheek cast was negative and showed he hadn't fired a rifle.
Why would they go back and add it to the 1st list after the exculpatory results were known?
Dump the bong water in the toilet. It's not for drinking.
Why would they go back and add it to the 1st list after the exculpatory results were known?
Simple.... The answer... Because they wanted it to appear that the original list had been created AFTER 11-23-63 because that damned "Palm Print" was listed on the original list and they ( both the FBI and the DPD) had lied and said that Day and the DPD had not told them about the Palm Print ...but the original list from 11-22-63, clearly had that palm print listed. THUS had desperately had to fool suckers like you into believing that the original list was NOT created on 11-22-63.
And as PT Barnum once observed.....There's a sucker born somewhere every minute.
-
Why would they go back and add it to the 1st list after the exculpatory results were known?
Simple.... The answer... Because they wanted it to appear that the original list had been created AFTER 11-23-63 because that damned "Palm Print" was listed on the original list and they ( both the FBI and the DPD) had lied and said that Day and the DPD had not told them about the Palm Print ...but the original list from 11-22-63, clearly had that palm print listed. THUS had desperately had to fool suckers like you into believing that the original list was NOT created on 11-22-63.
And as PT Barnum once observed.....There's a sucker born somewhere every minute.
So instead of typing a date on the list they add a piece of exculpatory evidence that was discovered after the list was typed?
You need to let go of this and admit your mistake.
Time to move on.
-
Simple.... The answer... Because they wanted it to appear that the original list had been created AFTER 11-23-63 because that damned "Palm Print" was listed on the original list and they ( both the FBI and the DPD) had lied and said that Day and the DPD had not told them about the Palm Print
How utterly circular.
But why would the "lying FBI and DPD" want to conceal the existence of a palmprint that they wanted to use as evidence against Oswald for several days and deliberately make its provenance as dodgy as possible?
-
How utterly circular.
But why would the "lying FBI and DPD" want to conceal the existence of a palmprint that they wanted to use as evidence against Oswald for several days and deliberately make its provenance as dodgy as possible?
why would the "lying FBI and DPD" want to conceal the existence of a palmprint
They said that the palm print had been found by Lt Day on the evening of 11-22-63, but the DPD never told the FBI that Day had found that so called Palm print.
However the evidence list shows that they HAD in fact told the FBI about the so called Palm Print and when the FBI received that print they reported that it was a smudge and worthless for identification purposes. This was one of the primary reasons they had to backtrack and send the evidence back to Dallas ....What better way to create confusion?? ......
-
All the items on the list, huh? Perhaps you can identify where in this photo you see the rifle, the cardboard boxes, the paraffin test, the Connally bullet fragments, and Day's magic partial palmprint.
All the items on the list, huh?
Duh...You need to read. I never said that all of the items on the list are in the photo.....
-
I never said that all of the items on the list are in the photo.....
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
Are you admitting that you're so ignorant and uninformed that you've never seen the evidence photo that shows all of the items that are on the list?
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
Ok, so you've found an error.... I'm human, I make errors, but....All of the items in the photo are on the list.
-
Here’s the back of that photo, from the FBI files. It’s dated 11/26. This was the evidence sent to the FBI the second time.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62276#relPageId=71&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62276#relPageId=71&tab=page)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/062/62276/images/img_62276_71_300.png)
-
Here’s the back of that photo, from the FBI files. It’s dated 11/26. This was the evidence sent to the FBI the second time.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62276#relPageId=71&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62276#relPageId=71&tab=page)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/062/62276/images/img_62276_71_300.png)
So you acknowledge that they photographed the evidence on 11-26-63 but deny that they photographed the evidence on 11-22-63....in spite of the fact that they would have been impossible to photograph the paper bag in the undamaged condition on 11-26-63, because the FBI destroyed the paper bag in testing on 11-23-63.
-
So you acknowledge that they photographed the evidence on 11-26-63 but deny that they photographed the evidence on 11-22-63....in spite of the fact that they would have been impossible to photograph the paper bag in the undamaged condition on 11-26-63, because the FBI destroyed the paper bag in testing on 11-23-63.
*unable ?
-
*unable ?
Go wallow in the mud, Tommy......
-
So you acknowledge that they photographed the evidence on 11-26-63 but deny that they photographed the evidence on 11-22-63....in spite of the fact that they would have been impossible to photograph the paper bag in the undamaged condition on 11-26-63, because the FBI destroyed the paper bag in testing on 11-23-63.
The FACT remains....Item number 14 on the original list that was typed up on 11-22-63 is:......1 Partial Palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C2766
-
So you acknowledge that they photographed the evidence on 11-26-63 but deny that they photographed the evidence on 11-22-63....in spite of the fact that they would have been impossible to photograph the paper bag in the undamaged condition on 11-26-63, because the FBI destroyed the paper bag in testing on 11-23-63.
How do you know that the bag in the 11/26 photo hasn't already been processed with silver nitrate? It looks darkened to me.
-
The FACT remains....Item number 14 on the original list that was typed up on 11-22-63 is:......1 Partial Palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle C2766
The fact remains that you have no evidence that this list was typed up on 11-22-63.
-
The fact remains that you have no evidence that this list was typed up on 11-22-63.
Iacoletti,
In your humble opinion, what would constitute "evidence" here (hypothetically speaking, of course)?
A film showing the list being made ... with a wall calendar in the background?
LOL
-
How do you know that the bag in the 11/26 photo hasn't already been processed with silver nitrate? It looks darkened to me.
Read the FBI report.....The FBI testified that the paper turned very dark brown....and there are photos of the bag that show it after the testing....They protected a small area of the bag to preserve the original color, and the contrast between the darkened paper and the original is very clear.
But I understand your reluctance to extract your head......
-
Read the FBI report.....The FBI testified that the paper turned very dark brown....and there are photos of the bag that show it after the testing....They protected a small area of the bag to preserve the original color, and the contrast between the darkened paper and the original is very clear.
But I understand your reluctance to extract your head......
The photo that you posted (the one from 11/26) shows a bag that appears to be darkened from silver nitrate. It continues to darken more over time. Whatever prints may have been on there are long since obliterated. Now do you have any actual evidence that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22 or not? Insults are not evidence.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20%20blanket.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
-
The photo that you posted (the one from 11/26) shows a bag that appears to be darkened from silver nitrate. It continues to darken morew over time. Whatever prints may have been on there are long since obliterated. Now do you have any actual evidence that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22 or not? Insults are not evidence.
Insults??.... I'm merely calling it as I see it....
Since you can't see the paper sack is not darkened ....Then perhaps you can count.... How many spent shells did they have on Friday? How many did they have on Tuesday 11-26 -63? I believe you'l have to agree that on Tuesday 11-26-63 they had added a spent shell to make the total in hand,... THREE ...but the photo shows only TWO spent shells, which is the number they had on Friday 11-22-63 .....
-
Thanks for the comparison, Gary! Looks stained in the bottom photo.
-
Insults??.... I'm merely calling it as I see it....
You think that namecalling makes your evidence-less argument more convincing. What else is new? That's your M.O.
Since you can't see the paper sack is not darkened ....Then perhaps you can count.... How many spent shells did they have on Friday? How many did they have on Tuesday 11-26 -63? I believe you'l have to agree that on Tuesday 11-26-63 they had added a spent shell to make the total in hand,... THREE ...but the photo shows only TWO spent shells, which is the number they had on Friday 11-22-63 .....
How do you know when the third spent shell was "added"?
By that logic, though, your evidence list could have been typed up anytime between 1//22 and 11/26, and the magic partial palmprint is still not in the 11/26 evidence photo.
-
You think that namecalling makes your evidence-less argument more convincing. What else is new? That's your M.O.
How do you know when the third spent shell was "added"?
By that logic, though, your evidence list could have been typed up anytime between 1//22 and 11/26, and the magic partial palmprint is still not in the 11/26 evidence photo.
I've long suspected that your goal here is to run interference for the DPD...... The more you deny the so called palm print was among the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63...the more I believe that you're just a contrarian troll. Because no rational honest person could be as stupid as you present yourself ......
-
I’m “denying” it because there is no evidence whatsoever that this list was typed up on 11/22. All of your fabrications involve you stating things as facts that you completely made up with no supporting evidence. Have you convinced even a single person that this claim of yours is true?
-
The photo that you posted (the one from 11/26) shows a bag that appears to be darkened from silver nitrate. It continues to darken more over time. Whatever prints may have been on there are long since obliterated. Now do you have any actual evidence that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22 or not? Insults are not evidence.
The "darkening" of the paper sack is merely shadow.... The same darkening can be seen on the shirt in the photo.
-
The "darkening" of the paper sack is merely shadow.... The same darkening can be seen on the shirt in the photo.
"The "darkening" of the paper sack is merely shadow"
The view of the evidence below shows it's all sitting on one large sheet of "unadulterated" wrapping paper.
That's it's natural color/shade.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/.highres/BaginDallasarchives_1.png)
-
"The "darkening" of the paper sack is merely shadow"
The view of the evidence below shows it's all sitting on one large sheet of "unadulterated" wrapping paper.
That's it's natural color/shade.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives_1.png)
Are you not aware that there are different shades of brown wrapping paper? It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.....
-
Are you not aware that there are different shades of brown wrapping paper? It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.....
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Could you post some pictures?
-
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Could you post some pictures?
No.... And they are not necessary. This thread is about the evidence list that accompanied the photos of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63. On 11-26-63 that paper bag was no longer the same sack that existed on 11-22-63. THAT IS A FACT! So they could not have took a photo of the sack on 11-26-63.
-
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Could you post some pictures?
Link-----
https://cdn.paperpapers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/6c42ae10719e0103cc98841d69d68579/8/1/811kraft-cvr-00.jpg
-
Link-----
https://cdn.paperpapers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/6c42ae10719e0103cc98841d69d68579/8/1/811kraft-cvr-00.jpg
The FBI said the gun sack was constructed from the same material used at the wrapping station at the TSBD.
Did they use different shades of wrapping paper to package books for shipment?
-
The FBI said the gun sack was constructed from the same material used at the wrapping station at the TSBD.
Did they use different shades of wrapping paper to package books for shipment?
The FBI said the gun sack was constructed from the same material used at the wrapping station at the TSBD.
There are two FBI reports ..... They appear to be identical, but close examination reveals that one report says the paper sack matches the TSBD paper, and the other says that it does NOT match the TSBD paper.
-
The FBI said the gun sack was constructed from the same material used at the wrapping station at the TSBD.
There are two FBI reports ..... They appear to be identical, but close examination reveals that one report says the paper sack matches the TSBD paper, and the other says that it does NOT match the TSBD paper.
I believe the dimensions of the cardboard boxes is in this thread....How would I find those dimensions?
-
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Could you post some pictures?
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Yes it does....There are many shades of "brown paper... And there are several different weights of brown paper.
The photo seems to show a HEAVY weight ( thick) brown paper.... But Buell Frazier has always maintained that the brown paper sack that he saw on the rear seat of his car, was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.
-
I wasn't aware that plain brown wrapping paper came in shades that different.
Yes it does....There are many shades of "brown paper... And there are several different weights of brown paper.
The photo seems to show a HEAVY weight ( thick) brown paper.... But Buell Frazier has always maintained that the brown paper sack that he saw on the rear seat of his car, was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.
He has not always maintained it "was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.
Where does he say it was flimsy?
-
No list was made on 11-22-63. The list on 24H260 was the list created on 11-26-63. And yes, it's been altered. The DPD sent two shells over on 11-26-63, and one later. Someone--it's not clear who--then changed the inventory list to reflect that three shells were sent over. Perhaps they knew there had been three and had assumed the two was a mistake.
In any event, if the goal had been to fool someone, they failed. The WC sent the FBI out to talk to Fritz Sims and Day and filed numerous reports explaining how it came to be that only two of the three shells were sent to Washington on the 22nd and 26th.
-
No list was made on 11-22-63. The list on 24H260 was the list created on 11-26-63. And yes, it's been altered. The DPD sent two shells over on 11-26-63, and one later. Someone--it's not clear who--then changed the inventory list to reflect that three shells were sent over. Perhaps they knew there had been three and had assumed the two was a mistake.
In any event, if the goal had been to fool someone, they failed. The WC sent the FBI out to talk to Fritz Sims and Day and filed numerous reports explaining how it came to be that only two of the three shells were sent to Washington on the 22nd and 26th.
No list was made on 11-22-63.
Is this position realistic??
-
No list was made on 11-22-63.
Is this position realistic??
I tend to accept the official story when it smells to high heaven.
The official story holds that the DPD released a number of items to the FBI on 11-22-63 without making a list or receiving a signed receipt. The FBI subsequently discussed these items in Airtels and made a report on these items but no signed list was ever discussed or produced. There is a note on one of the DPD crime lab reports that some of the items were released to Vince Drain that evening, but this is not a complete list of what was supposedly released.
But one of the problems exposed by this mess is the palm print reportedly cut from Box D, the seat box. This was reportedly removed from the box on the afternoon of the 22nd, and verified as Oswald's print that evening. And yet this print was not sent to the FBI for verification that evening. Nor was it photographed in situ in the building. Nor was it photographed at the DPD that evening. Nor is there an 11-22-63 DPD report in which this verification is noted. There is simply a claim that they removed it from a box found in the sniper's nest, and that it matched Oswald's palm print. I must admit I'm a skeptic.
-
I tend to accept the official story when it smells to high heaven.
The official story holds that the DPD released a number of items to the FBI on 11-22-63 without making a list or receiving a signed receipt. The FBI subsequently discussed these items in Airtels and made a report on these items but no signed list was ever discussed or produced. There is a note on one of the DPD crime lab reports that some of the items were released to Vince Drain that evening, but this is not a complete list of what was supposedly released.
But one of the problems exposed by this mess is the palm print reportedly cut from Box D, the seat box. This was reportedly removed from the box on the afternoon of the 22nd, and verified as Oswald's print that evening. And yet this print was not sent to the FBI for verification that evening. Nor was it photographed in situ in the building. Nor was it photographed at the DPD that evening. Nor is there an 11-22-63 DPD report in which this verification is noted. There is simply a claim that they removed it from a box found in the sniper's nest, and that it matched Oswald's palm print. I must admit I'm a skeptic.
I've posted about this,, and expressed my views, until I'm tired of talking about it.... I believe that the original evidence list as typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence.... The photos show only two spent rifle shells and that's what is listed on the original list. Later when the FBI were working a shell game and they returned the evidence to the DPD the DPD simply altered a photo copy of that original evidence list. The altered photo copy even states that the .38 cal pistol was released to the FBI on 11-22-63 and it was released again on 11-26-63. The entry on the original list simply said:... 1 --..38 cal pistol 2" barrel. And furthermore ....On the night of the murder the DPD didn't know anything about the rifle ....They only knew that it was a 6.5mm rifle of Italian manufacture....and that's how it was described on the original list for 11-22-63. They learned later that the rifle was a "Carcano Carbine" which they added to the altered photocopy on 11-26-63.
-
He has not always maintained it "was FLIMSY LIGHT WEIGHT brown paper.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.
Where does he say it was flimsy?
Note that all he says here is that it was the same color as the heavy duty bags, not that it was itself a heavy duty bag.
The "flimsy" characterization comes from this Anderton memo of 11/22.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/frazier-anderton-memo.png)
-
Note that all he says here is that it was the same color as the heavy duty bags, not that it was itself a heavy duty bag.
The "flimsy" characterization comes from this Anderton memo of 11/22.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/frazier-anderton-memo.png)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/frazier-anderton-memo.png)
I can't access the memo.... But I know that Frazier has said many times that the paper bag that he saw was made from FLIMSY (light weight ) paper