Dallas Police Crime Lab

[John Iacoletti]

No need to be sorry, the evidence shows the two prints came from the same rifle and if for whatever reason you think you see something different then good for you.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).

How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?

[Charles Collins]

Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.

And how did Livingston, Barnes, Williams, and Brown see something that Day didn’t tell anybody about?

So we’re to believe that Day tentatively identified the only print evidence they had that connected Oswald to the rifle on the 22nd and didn’t bother to mention that detail to the “distracted” Drain (distracted by what, a heart attack?) or to anybody else, but that somehow 4 other guys in the office came to the same conclusion without Day telling them?

And then somehow when the rifle was in transit, it lost any evidence that it had been processed with fingerprint powder, as well as losing the traces of print that Day claimed were still there.

Seems legit.

Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24-year old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the Triple Underpass. "We've got a print that matches Oswald's," one investigator said.

The article is typical in that it protects the sources by not naming them. You can make your ad hoch assumptions (about what you believe "the evidence" was) to support whatever you believe in. However, a logical assumption (based on the actual evidence) is that the evidence referred to in the article is the palm print found on the rifle.

or to anybody else

He stated that he told Curry and Fritz. These are the ones who were asking. The others could have made the comparison without Day telling them that he had tentatively matched them. After all, Livingston says that he overheard that there was a palmprint found on the rifle.

[John Iacoletti]

The article is typical in that it protects the sources by not naming them. You can make your ad hoch assumptions (about what you believe "the evidence" was) to support whatever you believe in. However, a logical assumption (based on the actual evidence) is that the evidence referred to in the article is the palm print found on the rifle.

What’s “logical” about it? The article doesn’t say “rifle” or “palmprint”.

[Charles Collins]

What’s “logical” about it? The article doesn’t say “rifle” or “palmprint”.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24-year old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the Triple Underpass. "We've got a print that matches Oswald's," one investigator said

A print that matches Oswald's found on the rifle would leave little doubt that he held the rifle. At the time the article was written (11/23/63, appeared in 11/24/63 morning paper) the evidence indicates that the only print that was tentatively matched (by Carl Day) to Oswald's was the palm print.

[John Mytton]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).

How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).

You already said in your first reply to me that my "morph" was the same lift, so why are you inventing doubt? This is explosive evidence and I should have looked closer at the FBI print a long time ago.

How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?

When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on. And another match is the relative sizes of each of the imperfections which independently dramatically increases the odds.
So getting back to your question as soon as you're matching three or more random points the chances of a coincidence happening becomes astronomical.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.





JohnM

[Jack Trojan]

You already said in your first reply to me that my "morph" was the same lift, so why are you inventing doubt? This is explosive evidence and I should have looked closer at the FBI print a long time ago.

When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points dramatically increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on.
So getting back to your question as soon as you're matching three or more random points the chances of a coincidence happening becomes astronomical.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

Thank you for not making another stupid morph. How about making another animated GIF showing how the print itself matches up relative to the 5 points for both lifts? Otherwise, all your GIF shows is that the 2 lifts "could" have been taken from the same surface. But we have to take everything from Day and the FBI with a grain of salt because the provenance for this evidence is shot due to the obvious rush to judgement and the dearth of Oswald's prints.

Make another blinking GIF matching up at least 12 points between the lift and Oswald's palm print. Apparently, a match was so blatantly obvious that several investigators could "eye-ball" a match. Keep in mind that the FBI discounted a 14+ point match to Malcolm Wallace's print found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, conducted by expert Nathan Darby. The FBI just came back with 3 words, "not a match". Darby went back and made a 34 point match, which would get anyone convicted except for a known killer.

We need to see the forensic fingerprint analysis on the palm print with the 12+ points identified as matching minus the amateur eye-baller opinions.

I don't doubt there is a match, but Oswald the patsy did NOT leave 1 partial palm print on the disassembled rifle barrel and nowhere else on the rifle. The odds of that are astronomical unless Oswald wore gloves or wiped the rifle down before fleeing the scene. However, there is no evidence that either is true.

Conclusion: Oswald never touched the rifle Nov 22, while he was still alive so he couldn't have taken any shots. It's more likely the FBI/DPD wiped off his prints before planting it in the TSBD because they had to wipe off everyone else's prints including the guy that took some shots into a swimming pool to create CE399. D'oh!

A military marksman is only as good as his level of practice and Oswald never practiced with the rifle, otherwise, he would have sighted-in the scope. Every military marksman knows not to rely on assassinating the POTUS with a misaligned scope, so why would Oswald have kept a useless scope on the rifle if he never intended to use it? Ans: he wouldn't have and didn't. Patsy.

[John Mytton]

How about making another animated GIF showing how the print itself matches up relative to the 5 points for both lifts? Otherwise, all your GIF shows is that the 2 lifts "could" have been taken from the same surface.

Here you go, the FBI lift and the high res Oswald Palm Print that Day lifted are both easily available for comparison, check for yourself and you'll see a lot more than just "5" matches, it's a touchdown, yay team!





JohnM

[Jack Trojan]

Here you go, the FBI lift and the high res Oswald Palm Print that Day lifted are both easily available for comparison, check for yourself and you'll see a lot more than just "5" matches, it's a touchdown, yay team!

Good thing you modified your last unhinged post. I was beginning to think you were a dufus.   As usual, you just don't have a clue what I or anyone else is saying. I know you think that matching up the 5 marks proves something but what? That Day and the FBI lifted a smudge from the same surface? So fricken what? Their credibility was shot long ago, what about the "prints"?

Make yourself useful for a change and create a definitive blinking GIF showing a match between the alleged print on the rifle and Oswald's hand print. Regurgitating anything created by Day and the FBI is a fool's errand. That's like claiming the WC report is true because Warren himself said so.

JTrojan