Glenn Nall

very nice, thanks Doug.

"I have great respect for your research, and for your integrity." agreed.

thanks, Pat - this is what i'm eager to look at, something concrete. I'm familiar with the way the wound has played musical cowlicks over the years - look forward to looking at this. there's a lot to absorb... i just found out that i can convert these scanned pdf's of Yankee Cowboy into text, with a little patience and editing of typos, so i've been doing that for the past couple of hours. it's taking a while but shortly we'll have the whole book available online. thanks

Pat - If you'll permit me a bit if newcomer ignorance: the way your post is worded, i'm under the impression that this is new material or something...? not quite sure, its being in chapter 13 and all. i look forward to reading this later (saw it's length and i have to make room on my schedule . just scanned the last two chapters of Yankee and Cowboy and need to prep it as a single document and post it here, then i'll read through this. eager to see whether it's fake, fake, fake or not. i can't wait.

Gary Mack has passed away

r u serious.

much better copy of this photo, isn't it - wow. my eyes certainly wanted to tell me one thing, that's for sure. amazing that the anomaly happens to appear to reach the same length as a bullet would have. thanks for the better pic.

along these lines but not exactly, i've always heard, and believe it's treated as a given, that there were THREE EMPTY shells found on the floor and ONE full round found in the breach of the MC (after Fritz accidentally ejected it when working the bolt at the scene - i'm always in awe of such "Fife-like" professionalism). an article i came across shows two photos of the shells on the floor and the author points out what is clearly a loaded round stuck between the wall and the floor - he says he once thought it was an artifact of the floor making the shell appear to be loaded — he thereafter found with clearer pics (from Bonner who used a better camera than the DPD) that the one is indeed a loaded bullet. what has been "decided" by way of some consensus, anyway? the story is three empties, right? [EDIT] - I added a closeup of the bullet from the 6th floor Museum for length comparison only - regardless, this doesn't look like a piece of lint to me - the reflection of this "anomaly" is too much like that of the cylindrical shape of a bullet. and the author of this article states he looked at photos Bonner took that were of great quality AFTER he had decided that it was a piece of the floor. man, i dunno - sure looks like a bullet to me...

thanks James - I'm assuming you hid what I just got in my email. I'm truly amazed at people sometimes. some people need to check their pathetic agenda at the door and allow this thread to maintain its respectful nod to Gary Mack - remember that this thread is forever and will be read by newcomers and veterans for years to come. or at least until the mystery is solved... here's to you, Gary.

delightful joke. well done...

Pat, Right. (I do hope this thread can sustain the dignity it deserves...)

this is what always confounded me about him, but i never wanted to ask out of intimidation, i guess - he had done so much in support of CT, credit for badgeman, etc - how he could 'revert' after seeing so much evidence (DVP, this is NOT an invitation for rebuttal)... enigmatic. he had a good heart, welcomed me right off when i got active in here.

very surprising - sorry to hear this - his is one of those ever-present names in this thing of ours, isn't it. Everywhere you go, there he is. Bless his heart. no matter which side he chose, his contribution was and is valuable...

hmm. is Sam Kinney to be trusted? other SA's said the Limo was being washed right there in Parkland parking lot... if so, then is Dr. Burkley to be trusted...? if so, then who did he give this evidence to...

while i get your reticence (i try to be as cautious as i can, as well) i was under the impression that this was one of those "official" photos (fake or not). in the dialog between Humes and his WC interviewer, they both mentioned the little white blob at the hairline below the flap, and Humes admitted that the visible thumb and forefinger was his. i've kinda come to accept that things visible in one photo not being so in another means very little. i've read testimony of the other photographer who said he took pictures of K on his back but his eyes were closed. so those discrepancies don't tell me much. this photo is identified as a falsified photo by others, too, but HOW falsified is my question. the fact that the WC testimony mentions several items in this photo tells me that it's likely at least originally of K. not sure what you mean about being authenticated in trial court. were ANY photos authenticated in trial court?

I know you've seen this pic before, but i'm pointing out that this looks so very clearly like a large flap of scalp that Humes described, with the "wet" (dried blood) hair patch very much different from the area of dry hair below that gray line - like it's an entire hairpiece being held in place. wouldn't be a big deal if there were also pictures available with the flap fallen out of the way, as Humes states would happen if not held by his finger. to me, film doctoring wasn't even necessary - from the many descriptions of the gaping hole, it's directly underneath this hair flap... IMO, anyway.

i don't know much about GIMP, but the professional image software Fill Tool can be set to many varying degrees of sensitivity - that "quite full" effect can be achieved or avoided depending upon the settings. when I intensified the brightness of the area the tool selects the varying degrees of darknesses on its own, which shows that there is some "relief" (hair) in the darker areas of the image. it's very important to remember that these are multiple generations removed from the original image which would contain much more detail, of course. the best software can only work with what it's given. even at this poor quality, any image doctoring would have to have included similar fake "relief" like the hair that we can see, or that Fill that you used and the highlighting technique would STILL find the solid "blackened" areas, such as Roger can see in the more centralized area of the highlight that i did, pretty much right above the hand's index finger. i don't doubt that some deceit was performed with these photographs. I feel more like they used parts of the scalp that already existed, such as a flap, to just cover over something they didn't want to be seen. I think that would have been a lot easier and more effective and less time consuming than airbrushing or whatever they used back then - paint brushes, i've read... when i find my copy of that other photo, I'll post it and point out what I see, and what i think Roger is referring to - there's a distinctive curving line around the lower portion of the scalp that sounds a lot like what Humes, et al, are describing...

Yeah, as I've mentioned several times now, it would be a little difficult for Oswald to sign the fingerprint card on November 25 seeing as how Lee had been dead for about 24 hours by that time. except that this Scalice fellow didn't seem to think so, since the document repeats the date of Nov 25. so something's wrong somewhere. I don't doubt you that LHO was dead by then. makes sense, and it's easy enough to validate. nevertheless, the doc verifies the date...

yeah, i was replying to the claim that 8 HSCA 385 shows that the form is dated wrong, but this thread's all out of whack...

ah - thanks. of course he did.

i happen to suspect the date at the top of that document more than the date ON the fingerprint form. especially when this one shows the arresting officer's name on the Nov 22 63 form: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0196a.htm FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF VINCENT J. SCALICE The following inked impressions were examined and compared at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978. 1) Fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald: U.S. Marine Corps Service No. 1653230 Prints taken by: Ogell W. Melam Date of prints: October 15, 1956 Armed Forces No. 327925D Signed:Lee Harvey Oswald 2)Arrest fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald: Dallas, Tex. Police Department Dallas No. 54018 Commission exhibit No. 630 Prints taken by: Not indicated Date of prints: November 25, 1963 Individual fingerprinted refused to sign same http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/hand.htm 3) Arrest fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald: New Orleans, Louisiana Police Department New Orleans No. 112-723 Prints taken by: Arthur M. James Date of prints: August 9, 1963 Not signed by Lee Harvey Oswald 4) Palm print impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald: Dallas, Tex. Police Department Left hand No. 628 Right hand No. 629 Prints taken by: J.B. Hicks Date of prints: November 22, 1963 5) Fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald: Dallas, Tex. Police Department Commission exhibit No. 627 Prints taken by :J. B. Hicks Date of prints: November 22 1963 The inked fingerprint and palm prints of Lee Harvey Oswald appearing on exhibits 1-5 are identical and are those of Lee Harvey Oswald. In addition, the following latent impressions were examined and compared with the inked fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978. 6) Latent fingerpoint designated 4a recovered from brown paper container (wrapping) and developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the left index finger (no. 7) of Lee Harvey Oswald. 7) Latent palm print, designated 4b, recovered from brown paper container (wrapping), developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. 8) Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5-millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial no. C2766, processed at the Dallas Police Department. It is of no value for identification purposes. 9) Lift from rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip at t. he gun barrel end of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift. 10) Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald. 11) Palm print recovered from small cardboard box A (commission No. 641), by Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the left palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. 12) Latent print (designated 2a) recovered from a cardboard box and processed by Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the right index finger (No. _0) of Lee Harvey Oswald. 13) Latent palm print recovered from the bottom of a cardboard carton marked D. developed by Dallas Police Department. I identified it as identical to that of right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald. 14) Latent fingerprint recovered from page 37 of the American Rifleman (June 1963), developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An order blank for Klein's Sporting Goods Co. had been torn from page 59. I identified it as the right thumb (No. 1) Lee Harvey Oswald.

1) A case cited by the defendant, the only evidence tending to establish guilt consisted of fingerprints found on a jewelry box recovered outside the complainant's apartment in an area accessible to the public.   In this circumstance, the Appellate Division ruled that such evidence “was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”   The judgment of conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed.  People v. Richard Collins, 150 A.D.2d 476, 541 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2nd Dept.1989). 2) In the second case cited by the defendant, the evidence presented to a Grand Jury consisted largely of the testimony of a detective who had investigated the alleged burglary of a church.  People v. John Jacob, 55 A.D.2d 961, 391 N.Y.S.2d 165 (2nd Dept.1977).   As stated by the Court: "...entry had been gained by means of removal of louvers from a window at the side of the building.   The window was in a ‘fenced-in area’;  access could only be had by climbing over a 12-foot-high wall and fence.  (The detective) processed the louvers for fingerprints and discovered two prints which were subsequently identified as belonging to the defendant.   This evidence, even though unexplained and uncontradicted, would not warrant a conviction by a trial jury.  (Citation omitted.)   The evidence against the defendant was circumstantial and we are unable to conclude that the evidence adduced did ‘exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt.’ 3) [Therefore]... "In the opinion of this Court, the cases cited by the defendant do lend credence to the assertion that “fingerprints found on an item that was accessible to the general public is not sufficient to convict.”" Exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt. (I just LOVE that phrase...) this is obviously in reference to the strength of the fingerprint(s) in the TSBD and on the rifle, not on his fingerprint card.

yep. i'm really trying to chase his addiction to contradiction, and not the weight per se - i could care less about who saw LHO where at 12.45 or how much he weighed - it has such little bearing if it can't be decided upon - but i'm admittedly just as guilty of falling into the dammit-why-cant-you-admit-youre-wrong well as anyone else. but i'm getting better. progress, not perfection.

no, i have not had anything to say about your arguments about who ID'd who. I was simply drawing attention to another of your contradictions and your inability to admit when you're wrong. which brings me back to my original question: IF Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs. AND he was weighed at his last arrest date at 131 lbs (on a scale, presumably) AND you assert that 3 people estimate him at between 150 and 175 pounds - how DO you propose he gained 20 pounds in that short amount of time? that sounds like a pretty fair question to me. is it not? and my second question was (implied) - why bother correcting the man if that 150 pounds "could easily have been wrong," "was just an estimate", and "not mattering in the long run"... just something to do, split hairs with someone...? (hence the title of this thread...)