(PART 818)


As I told you before you jumped in and made an ass out of yourself -- go get a piece of tubing at the hardware store and try to deposit an identifiable palm print on that tube. I guarantee you that it is impossible to deposit an identifiable print on a 5/8-inch metal tube. Even as I type this I know that you won't perform this simple experiment because you're an egotistical snobby son-of-a-bitch who doesn't have the brains or the guts to face reality.


Walt apparently thinks the cops were both brilliant patsy-framers and incompetent boobs AT THE SAME TIME, because Walt thinks the cops were so stupid that they would attempt to fool the public by claiming that CE637 (Oswald's palmprint) was lifted from a portion of a rifle on which it would be physically impossible to leave even the tiniest identifiable part of a human palmprint.

But ol' Carl Day didn't fool good ol' Walt Cakebread, did he? Walt sees through the "palmprint on the rifle barrel" nonsense like a lace curtain, don't you Walt?

Interestingly enough, however, Walt is the first person EVER (that I'm aware of) who has suggested that a palmprint could not possibly adhere to the portion of the rifle barrel where Lt. Day said he extracted the print from.

I guess somebody better tell Oliver Stone to re-film the fantasy scene in his 1991 movie that has some evil conspirators pressing a rifle barrel to the palm of a dead Lee Harvey Oswald in the morgue. Stone must not have talked to Walter Cakebread before he filmed that scene, huh? Because Oliver seems to think a PALMPRINT (albeit a planted one) was placed on the barrel of Oswald's Carcano rifle.

Now the only thing that's probably troubling Walt is this logical question:

If the cops were going to plant Oswald's prints on the rifle, why would they want to plant a PALMPRINT on a place on the rifle where a PALMPRINT could not possibly fit? Why not plant another FINGERPRINT (like the ones they planted on the triggerguard and on the top of the brown paper bag)?

In summary:

The reality that Walt will never face is the fact that Oswald's prints were on the barrel and the triggerguard of Rifle C2766, verifying that Walt's favorite "patsy" had his fingers right next to the trigger of his own rifle on November 22, 1963.*

* The date is verified by the fact that Oswald's rifle WAS fired that day (11/22/63) from the Book Depository. Or would Walt now like to offer up this oddball scenario?:

The person who fired Oswald's rifle on Nov. 22 could have easily avoided leaving any prints on the triggerguard, thereby leaving Oswald's prints intact on the trigger housing from a previous time when Oswald handled the weapon.

Of course, I also realize that Walt thinks that Vincent Scalice is full of shit when Scalice determined in 1993 that the triggerguard prints were positively the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald, even though just plain old garden-variety logic would dictate that the odds of ANY prints found on that gun AT ANY TIME being ANYONE ELSE'S other than the OWNER OF THAT GUN are probably pretty slim.

And we must always keep in mind that Walt Cakebread is the same mega-kook who thinks that JFK was shot in the throat from the front at approximately Zapruder frame 161, with that bullet exiting Kennedy's upper back. Walt knows this to be a fact because Walt can see a piece of JFK's white shirt flying out of the bullet's exit hole on Kennedy's back in the Robert Croft photograph, which is yet another photo that Walter thinks has been "altered".

In addition, let's not forget that Walt is also the same kook who thinks that Howard Brennan was "DESCRIBING" a shooter on the WEST end of the Book Depository, even though Brennan's Warren Commission testimony couldn't be any clearer as to the ONE AND ONLY EAST-END window from where he saw the gunman shooting.

And yet, incredibly, I am the one who needs to have my "bullshit" shoved down my "lying throat".

There should be a separate insane asylum in this world reserved for "JFK CONSPIRACY CLOWNS". If there were, Walt would be admitted immediately--no questions asked.

David Von Pein
January 1, 2010