BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Alan Ford]

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.

Thank you for posting Alyea's statement Zeon.....   But why do you deny that Alyea filmed Day lifting prints with scotch tape and placing the lifts on "little white cards" ?

the alleged  "lift" of a palm print on the barrel, WAS NOT filmed by Tom Alyea, since the rifle was NOT disassembled in that film segment of Tom Alyea recording Lt.Day doing some dusting of a FULLY ASSEMBLED rifle.

Zeon, the lift of the smudge that the mendacious Day said was taken from the metal barrel...Was actually one of the lifts that Day took from the WOODEN parts of the carcano as Alyea watched.   The CE exhibit ( CE 637) itself is PROOF that the lift was taken off the Wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 Manlicher Carcano.
The two parallel lines are the edges of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden fore grip of the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano  to allow the blade to be folded back and out of the way when it wasn't being used.

You simply must refrain from believing the mendacious authorities.....

Stay classy, Mr Cakebread... 

[Colin Crow]

Was the clipboard, discovered by (and manufactured by) Frankie Kaiser on the sixth floor about a week after the assassination, ever fingerprinted to determine handling by the misappropriating, commie, recently deceased accused assassin?

[John Iacoletti]

As my example shows the copy of CE2637 we have is not of sufficient quality to see the required details but the original shows what appears to be a good copy of a human print.

I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.

I see no reason to doubt the findings knowing that an original most probably exists, the rifle still exists and we now have a high def copy of Days original day 1 Oswald palm print for comparison. I believe it's a little naive to suggest that The FBI would leave themselves open to such easily discovered deception.

?Day?s original day 1 Oswald palm print?. LOL

The FBI analyzed what they were sent. No more, no less.

[Walt Cakebread]

I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.

?Day?s original day 1 Oswald palm print?. LOL

The FBI analyzed what they were sent. No more, no less.

I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.

According to he FBI lab ....There was no identifiable print in that index card....The FBI examined it on Saturday 11/23/63 and reported the print was nothing but a smudge and useless for identification purposes.

[Alan Ford]

Is there any technical explanation for the fact that as we flick from original to CE1952
----------------'Day' stays in exactly the same place
----------------'Oswald' moves noticeably to the right?

Wrinkling or stretching of paper during the copying process?

Hard to see how that would work, however!

Here's the reverse side of the original:



No anomaly there when the original was being photographed--------------so it would have to have happened at copying stage...

But how? 

[Alan Ford]

[Colin Crow]

Is there any technical explanation for the fact that as we flick from original to CE1952
----------------'Day' stays in exactly the same place
----------------'Oswald' moves noticeably to the right?

Wrinkling or stretching of paper during the copying process?

Hard to see how that would work, however!

Here's the reverse side of the original:



No anomaly there when the original was being photographed--------------so it would have to have happened at copying stage...

But how? 

The "Day" in each case looks identical.....just moved slightly.....my guess is it result of carbon copy and the copy paper underneath moved slightly when that word was written.

My suggestion of the chronology would be this.

The original CSS was a form that had a carbon copy underneath. The original was written on by Day using red pen on the day they were submitted on two occasions. Day completed everything in red in the top portion. Howlett signed off at this time in blue, the top signature. Then the rods were fingerprinted and the results placed on the form again in red, maybe indicating a quick turnaround. The "Day" at the bottom was written as an afterthought and at a time when the carbon copy had moved slightly underneath.

For some reason the original was detached from the carbon copy after the results were entered but prior to release.

The blue pen was used to enter the release date information at a later time. Howlett signing at that time and Day entering the information. So the original had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line but the carbon had nothing on those lines. This was later filled in by Day with the correct time of release but the incorrect date. It was this carbon copy that was used as the WC exhibit.