+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    253

    No finger print of Oswalds found

    The fingerprint traces found on the side of the trigger housing of the rifle were first photographed and then covered with cellophane tape by Lieutenant Day to protect them for shipment to the FBI lab in Washington, DC. Lieutenant Day had determined that the fingerprints were too light to do a lift first and then photograph, so he photographed the fingerprints before covering them with the tape. (5) He also scratched his name on the stock of the rifle. When testifying later in Washington to the Warren Commission, Lieutenant Day told Rusty and me that he had some trouble finding his name because it was very faint.(6)
    As Lieutenant Day worked on the rifle during the evening, Chief Curry came into the Crime Lab Office. Lieutenant Day told him at the time that he had located a trace of a print on the trigger housing, but he had not yet had a chance to do a comparison check with Oswald's print card. He told Rusty and me that the Chief then went back down to the third floor and told the newsmen that we had a print. He said that he had not told Chief Curry that it was Oswald's print at that time.
    Lieutenant Day had foreknowledge of the FBI wanting to get the rifle from the Dallas Police before the order came to release it from his own superiors. Earlier in the evening Forrest Sorrels, the local Secret Service Agent, told Lieutenant Day, "The FBI is trying to get that gun. I told him that was fine with me if somebody wanted to work on it."
    Lieutenant Day did not try to lift the fingerprints that he found on the trigger housing of the rifle on November 22nd, 1963. He photographed them only, and later did try to do a fingerprint comparison from a print card of Oswald to determine if he had held the rifle. Day stated to the Warren Commission that he could not exclude all possibility as to whose prints they were, but he did say that he thought that they were the right middle and right ring finger of Oswald.(7) Lieutenant Day recalled that, as he was beginning to dust the rest of the rifle following the photographing of the trigger-housing prints, Captain Doughty came in and told him to stop working on the rifle. He said this was probably about 8:30 or 9:00 pm. A few minutes later, Captain Fritz came into the Crime Lab Office and told him that Marina Oswald was in his office and he needed some information about the gun. He needed to know if Lee Oswald's prints were on the rifle. So Lieutenant Day began to once again dust the Mannlicher Carcano and soon located a palm print.
    Last edited by eflteacher; 09-14-2009 at 06:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by eflteacher View Post
    The fingerprint traces found on the side of the trigger housing of the rifle were first photographed and then covered with cellophane tape by Lieutenant Day to protect them for shipment to the FBI lab in Washington, DC. Lieutenant Day had determined that the fingerprints were too light to do a lift first and then photograph, so he photographed the fingerprints before covering them with the tape. (5) He also scratched his name on the stock of the rifle. When testifying later in Washington to the Warren Commission, Lieutenant Day told Rusty and me that he had some trouble finding his name because it was very faint.(6)
    As Lieutenant Day worked on the rifle during the evening, Chief Curry came into the Crime Lab Office. Lieutenant Day told him at the time that he had located a trace of a print on the trigger housing, but he had not yet had a chance to do a comparison check with Oswald's print card. He told Rusty and me that the Chief then went back down to the third floor and told the newsmen that we had a print. He said that he had not told Chief Curry that it was Oswald's print at that time.
    Lieutenant Day had foreknowledge of the FBI wanting to get the rifle from the Dallas Police before the order came to release it from his own superiors. Earlier in the evening Forrest Sorrels, the local Secret Service Agent, told Lieutenant Day, "The FBI is trying to get that gun. I told him that was fine with me if somebody wanted to work on it."
    Lieutenant Day did not try to lift the fingerprints that he found on the trigger housing of the rifle on November 22nd, 1963. He photographed them only, and later did try to do a fingerprint comparison from a print card of Oswald to determine if he had held the rifle. Day stated to the Warren Commission that he could not exclude all possibility as to whose prints they were, but he did say that he thought that they were the right middle and right ring finger of Oswald.(7) Lieutenant Day recalled that, as he was beginning to dust the rest of the rifle following the photographing of the trigger-housing prints, Captain Doughty came in and told him to stop working on the rifle. He said this was probably about 8:30 or 9:00 pm. A few minutes later, Captain Fritz came into the Crime Lab Office and told him that Marina Oswald was in his office and he needed some information about the gun. He needed to know if Lee Oswald's prints were on the rifle. So Lieutenant Day began to once again dust the Mannlicher Carcano and soon located a palm print.
    Yes the palm print is as good as a finger print and proof Oswald held his rifle that day.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    253

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Yes the palm print is as good as a finger print and proof Oswald held his rifle that day.
    So now you acknowledge that it was not a fingerprint and that it was a palmprint.

    There is a big difference, mister and you have been misleading us.

    Let's finish this once and for all.

    There were no finger prints as you have acknowledged.

    The palmprint appeared later and it seems that it was placed post-mortum as explained by the mortitian where Oswald was prepared.


    No fingerprints.

    A manufactured palmprint.

    A negative parafin test.

    An implausible scenerio and theory.

    Countless witness testimony counter to that theory.

    A film countering that theory.

    Physicians testimony counter to that theory.

    Countless lost and destroyed evidence by the people who were not only in control of the investigation , but who are now the prime suspect.

    Your plot has been exposed and there is no reason for you to make a fool of yourself anymore.


    Sorry You lose

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by eflteacher View Post
    So now you acknowledge that it was not a fingerprint and that it was a palmprint.

    There is a big difference, mister and you have been misleading us.

    Let's finish this once and for all.

    There were no finger prints as you have acknowledged.

    The palmprint appeared later and it seems that it was placed post-mortum as explained by the mortitian where Oswald was prepared.


    No fingerprints.

    A manufactured palmprint.

    A negative parafin test.

    An implausible scenerio and theory.

    Countless witness testimony counter to that theory.

    A film countering that theory.

    Physicians testimony counter to that theory.

    Countless lost and destroyed evidence by the people who were not only in control of the investigation , but who are now the prime suspect.

    Your plot has been exposed and there is no reason for you to make a fool of yourself anymore.


    Sorry You lose
    You lost big time boy you keep repeating lies which have been proven lies.

    I never claimed fingerprints or denied that the one found was a palm print.

    It was not placed post mortem. There is simply zero evidence of this claim. It is as good as a fingerprint. Your claim it was manufactureed is a desperate claim without so much as a shred of suport because you have to lie to deny the fact that it is evidence against him and which undermines your claims.

    The paraffin test is irrelevant as has been pointed out to you three times and it is fact that it is irrelevant so it is not evidence either way. Yet in desperation you keep referring to it. I have been discussing facts and evidence not a theory and it is not implausible except to the intellectually challenged which includes all of your sources.

    There are not countless witnesses but in fact a limited number of them most of whom lack any credibility. The physician offered no testimony countering it he stated an opinion which was out of his realm of expertise and finally there is no film countering it...
    You are the one who has been beaten and has lost or maybe you wish to argue that the paraffin test proves something again.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    253

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    You lost big time boy you keep repeating lies which have been proven lies.

    I never claimed fingerprints or denied that the one found was a palm print.

    It was not placed post mortem. There is simply zero evidence of this claim. It is as good as a fingerprint. Your claim it was manufactureed is a desperate claim without so much as a shred of suport because you have to lie to deny the fact that it is evidence against him and which undermines your claims.

    The paraffin test is irrelevant as has been pointed out to you three times and it is fact that it is irrelevant so it is not evidence either way. Yet in desperation you keep referring to it. I have been discussing facts and evidence not a theory and it is not implausible except to the intellectually challenged which includes all of your sources.

    There are not countless witnesses but in fact a limited number of them most of whom lack any credibility. The physician offered no testimony countering it he stated an opinion which was out of his realm of expertise and finally there is no film countering it...
    You are the one who has been beaten and has lost or maybe you wish to argue that the paraffin test proves something again.
    So what do I , or any of the witnesses have to gain by this?

    Regarding the paraffin tests. The point is Soupnuts, that Chief Curry made a big deal about them; stating that "they were favorable," then they ended up not favorable, so now you lone nuts harp on how they are not important. ( since the tests didn't work out for you)

    If they would have shown Oswald fired a rifle they most certainly would have been used against him.

    Would you disagree with that?

    The fact is; they are exculpory in the negative evidence and damaging in the positive and without them, the case against Oswald would not have moved forward.

    That is why they had to kill Oswald.
    Last edited by eflteacher; 09-16-2009 at 06:11 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by eflteacher View Post
    So what do I , or any of the witnesses have to gain by this?

    Regarding the paraffin tests. The point is Soupnuts, that Chief Curry made a big deal about them; stating that "they were favorable," then they ended up not favorable, so now you lone nuts harp on how they are not important. ( since the tests didn't work out for you)

    If they would have shown Oswald fired a rifle they most certainly would have been used against him.

    Would you disagree with that?

    The fact is; they are exculpory in the negative evidence and damaging in the positive and without them, the case against Oswald would not have moved forward.

    That is why they had to kill Oswald.
    Ruby killed Oswald not they.

    And you are dead wrong pariffin tests are never exculpory they do not prove a negative. In fact even if positive they are seldom cited in court because they are not reliable. They are most often used as a means of narrowing down a search not as evidence. Lack of a positive result in such a test never proves that someone did NOT fire a weapon.

    As I have pointed witnesses often lie and do so for simple gain either fame or notoriety. Or sometimes perhaps merely to advance a political agenda which many conspiracy authors have.

    Most of the witnesses cited by conspiracy authors are easily discredited for these reasons or because they come forward years later which discredits any witness.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    253

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Ruby killed Oswald not they.

    And you are dead wrong pariffin tests are never exculpory they do not prove a negative. In fact even if positive they are seldom cited in court because they are not reliable. They are most often used as a means of narrowing down a search not as evidence. Lack of a positive result in such a test never proves that someone did NOT fire a weapon.

    As I have pointed witnesses often lie and do so for simple gain either fame or notoriety. Or sometimes perhaps merely to advance a political agenda which many conspiracy authors have.

    Most of the witnesses cited by conspiracy authors are easily discredited for these reasons or because they come forward years later which discredits any witness.


    First of all, they are not "conspiracy researchers," as most have more credibility than anyone in the governments case. Take Chief Curry, for example, who in later years did not believe the official story that he helped shape. If anyone is not to be believed , it would be him.

    Anyway, you missed the point, as usual. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, also as usual. When the Dallas Police were presenting the case against Oswald, they were very confident of the importance of the Parafin tests and lied when they said they were positive.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdj0T4QDs8Y


    So, now that they ended up negative, they are not important?


    Also, if you still believe that Ruby was not involved in the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate and was not involved in the assassination and ordered to kill Oswald with the assistance of the Dallas Police, you are a fool.
    Last edited by eflteacher; 09-18-2009 at 01:58 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Quote Originally Posted by eflteacher View Post
    First of all, they are not "conspiracy researchers," as most have more credibility than anyone in the governments case. Take Chief Curry, for example, who in later years did not believe the official story that he helped shape. If anyone is not to be believed , it would be him.

    Anyway, you missed the point, as usual. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, also as usual. When the Dallas Police were presenting the case against Oswald, they were very confident of the importance of the Parafin tests and lied when they said they were positive.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdj0T4QDs8Y


    So, now that they ended up negative, they are not important?


    Also, if you still believe that Ruby was not involved in the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate and was not involved in the assassination and ordered to kill Oswald with the assistance of the Dallas Police, you are a fool.
    Wrong I have consistently stated the same thing about the paraffin tests and all I have stated about them are facts it is you demanding that a falsehood be considered evidence.

    Chief Curry never believed as you claim he was no conspiracy nit wit and he knew the evidence proves OSwald acted alone.

    You are the fool believing lie after lie none of which has evidence including the lis about Ruby he had no real connection to organized crime as every expert knows.

    Sorry but you have consistently stated the government is wrong or dishonest or incompetent but that is just your subjective and unsupported opinion.

    The fact is you conspiracy nits are more dishonest and in denial of facts than the government.

    Much like every poinbt we have argued the facts and evidence go against you .
    You consistently state opinion and NOTHING else.

    You fail to offer evidence of any reliability or credibility.

    And no it is not MY judgement about reliability or credibility but instead objective standards of reliability and credibility.
    For example a witness who makes a claim YEARS after hearing an event. You would place great weight on such a witness but no one else ever would because it is fact that no ones memory is reliable to that extent. Witnesses who change their story drastically as well are unreliable and yet you place great trust in them.

    You instantly believe anything any conspiracy nut writes even though none of them have evidence such as Mr. Douglas who merely repeats the whole Oliver Stone BS without one piece of supporting evidence or proof.

    BUt of course when government investigations provide hardcore evidence you condemn it without any reason other than it proves you wrong. I guess all those in prison for crimes are innocent according to your standards and we need to release them because no one can be proven to be a criminal.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    253

    Re: No finger print of Oswalds found

    Oliver Stone is not a researcher. He made Hollywood films, one of which was about the JFK assassination.

    "JFK," however, is more accurate than anything that the government or nutcases like you believe.

    The SBT has been completely debunked. Since that is the central part of the governments case, there is really no need for anything else.

    Research, and researchers, however, have discredited virtually every aspect of this case, including the Secret Service inaction.

    There is a film which shows the frontal shot, and countless witnesses would testify to shots from the front.

    United States Secret Service Agents to not sit or stand there with their thumbs up their ass unless they were told to do so.

    Shots were fired, an Agent turned around as seen in the Altgens film, yet they did nothing.

    Because they were told to.

    The only question is why.

Similar Threads

  1. Charlie Bit My Finger Official Video
    By Administrator in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2014, 09:40 AM
  2. The rifle was Oswalds. Don't deny the evidence!
    By danrush1966 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2010, 09:18 AM
  3. Kindergartner Suspended for 'Finger Gun'
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2010, 09:37 PM
  4. History Of The Middle Finger!
    By peregrine in forum General Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 09:42 PM
  5. Where Are The Lee Harvey Oswalds Now That We Need Them?
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2007, 08:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •