Glenn Nall

Pat, your low-on-the-head wound seems to be pretty close to what the late Tom Purvis had theorized. Purvis called this one the third shot, the one located past Z313...closer to about Z345. And right about where the original West survey for the SS said it happened.

Now, I corresponded for several years with Tom Purvis, and while he was firm in his belief of "3 shots/3 hits," I did eventually get him to admit that he couldn't place Oswald in the window with the rifle at the time the shots were fired. When I have more time, I plan to study your Chapter 13 in detail. I have great respect for your research, and for your integrity. You're not beyond admitting you were wrong when you find an error, and that goes a long way with folks like me who are simply seeking the truth.

"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

Ron Ecker @ post #45:

Here's what I'm getting at, an example. In late 1963, Dr. A, who examined JFK's remains, stated in a public way that JFK's occiput had been blasted outward.

Fact: Dr. A. made the statement in question. This fact could be admitted into evidence at a trial to prove, for example, that Dr. A spoke English, or that Dr. A was compos mentis on the day he made the statement, or that he was present at the place the statement was made, or that Dr. was alive on such a day. None of these matters depend on whether Dr. A spoke truthfully or accurately.

Alleged fact: JFK had a blown-out occiput. As matters stand, this is a mere allegation, not evidence. A prosecutor such as Vince Bugliosi, for example, would keep this alleged fact from being admitted into evidence and furnished to the jury unless at trial he had the opportunity to examine or cross-examine Dr. A. under oath.

Is the alleged fact of legitimate interest to JFK researchers and scholars? Of course. But because it's not evidence, someone could deride it; deride it, for example, as being a mere allegation, as being based on false memory or prejudice, or as being the remark of someone seeking public attention. Such derision can be effective in the court of public debate, and rightly so.

Bottom line: the fact LHO was never tried for JFK's murder is the most important fact in the case.

Bottom line: Gary Mack, whom I accept as a good guy, didn't follow evidence, because there isn't any. There are simply (provable) facts and alleged facts. If we don't maintain these distinctions, the discussion turns to mush. We wake up tomorrow, and it's Groundhog Day all over again.

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...)

I can't believe Gary Mack is dead. What I liked about him was when he'd

send me an email with information he wanted posted to the forum. And I

always obliged. He discovered Badge Man, yet for some reason, he turned

away from conspiracy and, I guess, believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot

President Kennedy from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

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.

This is what you get when you play around with bucket fill in GIMP>

Strange that the whole area comes out red with one press of the button.

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...

Date of prints: November 25, 1963

Individual fingerprinted refused to sign same

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...

Glenn:

What I am referring to with "the above" is the title of the thread.

Davey says this did not happen.

ah - thanks.

of course he did.

Footnote/Addendum:

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on

"November 22, 1963", and not on November 25.

However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [see pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".]

I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

What looks really suspicious to me in the "Fox 5" picture is the right rear of the head. You can see the overhead lights reflecting off of the wet, matted hair. But the right rear of the head is a flat black color with nothing reflecting. Other things in the same sphere are lit up and visible, and there's nothing in front of the right rear of the head to make a shadow. To me it looks like someone blacked out the back of the head, just like in the Zapruder film. Or maybe they took a sharpie.

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.

Interesting thread. Just as the title suggests, DVP has managed to get everyone chasing LHO's weight . . . off topic and already documented.

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?

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...)

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn?

But thanks anyway.

yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David?

Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job.

you missed it and you know it.