Sandy Larsen

I don't think he looks like Oswald at all. Though he does look like the guy in the inset picture who is supposed to be Oswald. Especially the hairline... nearly an exact match IMO. The ears look too big though.

It's worth noting that David received his Doctorate in Physics before he entered Medical School. It is further worth noting that the very thesis that earned him his PhD in physics concerned x-Ray scattering. His interest in [and acquired expertise regarding] x-Rays actually preceded his work as a radiation oncologist and was sufficiently formidable to earn him a PhD. I do not know of a single radiologist who became a physicist on the merits of their Doctoral Thesis concerning x-Ray scattering or any other aspect of x-Rays. That does not mean that there aren't any, but I know of none--particularly none within the JFK Research Community. Greg, What you say here makes all the difference. Dr. Mantik may know little in terms of reading certain types of x-rays, but he certainly would know how to make and interpret optical densities readings. Of course, professionals can be mistaken, and non-professionals can get things right. But not knowing that to be the case, my money goes on the professional.

If the word "appears" is used in a sentence, then the word "factual" should not be used in association with that same sentence, IMO. Because something that merely "appears" to be true is not definitive enough to be labelled "factual". Such as this sentence: I used the word "factual" to point out that Armstrong didn't say anything that was untrue. Yes, it was speculation. But he never said anything to indicate it was anything more than speculation. And given what we all knew then, the bleed-thru WAS a "strong indication" (not ABSOLUTE indication) that the money order was not card stock. Now we know better. It appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald. The above statement is not "factual" at all. It's simply speculation. Well of course your sentence is not factual. Because you present no evidence that might make one conclude a conspiracy existed. In other words, there is nothing to make a conspiracy APPARENT. Let me add a sentence that will make yours factual: "The FBI interviewed a reliable source who overheard a conversation between Jack Ruby and a known mob figure in which the shooting of Oswald was discussed. So it appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald." In this case your sentence would be factual. Not factual that a conspiracy exists, but that it appears to exist. Anyway, the quote from John Armstrong that started this mini-debate over the word "factual" is the quote repeated below, which is most definitely not a "factual" claim (and never was)---even though Sandy seems to think otherwise for some odd reason. Nor is the bleed-thru a "strong indication" that the Hidell M.O. was made out of thinner paper stock (and Cadigan No. 11 proves it's not a "strong indication" of that).... "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so.

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork. David, "On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue." Is that statement factual or not? Am I making a claim that the air is blue? Is the statement speculation? Is the statement misleading ? The AIR is blue? LOL No.... the air appears to be blue. You still can't see how the the word "appear" affects the meaning of a sentence? You appear to have a reading disorder. But I really think you're just playing dumb. Something you shouldn't do if you want to come across as credible.

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork. David, "On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue." Is that statement factual or not? Am I making a claim that the air is blue? Is the statement speculation? Is the statement misleading ?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork. And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong. FACTUAL: adj. 1. Of the nature of fact; real. 2. Of or containing facts. adj. 1. of or pertaining to facts. 2. based on facts. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual David, I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence. Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary. --Tommy Thanks for explaining that to David. But I resent your insinuation that I used the word "appear" as a way "out" if necessary. I used the word to point out that I never said that the money order was paper and not card stock. Only that it appeared to be. Sandy, Sorry to have "impugned" your character like that, but I actually admire you for having used the word "appears" originally, because all to many CTers wouldn't have qualified it like that, but would have said "is clearly" or "is obviously" in that situation, which would have made it more difficult for them to concede defeat gracefully. So it is a fact that the money order appeared to you to be made from paper, not card stock. Because the ink seemed to you to have bled through it. But it hadn't. And it wasn't. Are you convinced now that the money order was made from card stock? And are you convinced now that whatever it was that the fingerprint experts did to it, what they did do happened to only make it look like the ink had bled through the paper / card stock? Do you still think the card stock money order was forged / manufactured / altered by the bad guys? Where do we go next with this? --Tommy Tommy, Thank you for your thoughtful and kind reply. I do indeed consider the Hidell money order to be a genuine postal money order made of card stock. There is no reason to believe otherwise. As for whether or not the money order was actually cashed, the jury is still out on that IMO. It depends on how common it was at the time for a bank not t o have stamped a postal money order. If it was common, then we learn nothing from the lack of a bank stamp. If it was very uncommon, then that would lead me to believe the money order might have been forged. But not necessarily so, as should be obvious. As it now stands, there currently does seem to be a smoking gun with regard to the gun purchase. And that is the fact that the DPD was giving out conflicting information on the order after it was found. The FBI informed the DPD that they had the order in hand and that it was in Oswald's handwriting, and other information gained from the order. But for some reason they gave the DPD the wrong price, $12.78 instead of $21.45. Even though the FBI had the price right in front of them, on the order itself! It could be argued that a mistake had merely occurred in relaying the price, if it weren't for the fact that Klein's was indeed advertising the rifle at the $12.78 price... for the rifle without a scope. DVP has come up with a possible explanation or two. I don't buy them. Maybe someone will come up with an explanation that is more likely to have occurred. I won't say this proves the gun purchase never occurred as reported. But it certainly is suspicious. This coupled with other rifle-purchase difficulties keeps me suspecting (for now) that it was part of a setup.

[Deleted]

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork. And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong. FACTUAL: adj. 1. Of the nature of fact; real. 2. Of or containing facts. adj. 1. of or pertaining to facts. 2. based on facts. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual David, I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence. Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary. --Tommy Thanks for explaining that to David. But I resent your insinuation that I used the word "appear" as a way "out" if necessary. I used the word to point out that I never said that the money order was paper and not card stock. Only that it appeared to be.

Pat quoted from his website: "While higher kilovoltage produces greater penetration, lower kilovoltage values produce a greater degree of contrast in the structure of varying density. Over-penetrated roentgenograms present a grey lack of contrast and under-penetrated films show a chalky increase of contrast which is equally objectionable." It seems possible from this that Kennedy's skull x-rays were both under-penetrated and over-exposed, and that this unfortunate combination led to their strange appearance." It appears the you can't have both under-penetration and over-exposure on the same film, because the former results from a LOW kV setting, whereas the latter results from a HIGH kV setting. But maybe what he's saying is that the missing fragments of bone on part of the skull, and extra layer of bone (the "wing") on a different part of the skull, is what caused the excessive contrast we see in the x-ray. Nevertheless, the most impressive statement Pat makes in his article, in terms of casting doubt on Dr. Mantik's conclusion, IMO, is that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist and not a radiologist. I had assumed he is a radiologist. (Though this fact doesn't mean he's wrong or doesn't know what he's doing.)

I never said Armstrong was "lying". Why did you use that word, Sandy? Armstrong was just simply wrong. But I never claimed he was lying. But you, Sandy, were certainly also wrong when you used the word "factual" in this statement a little while ago.... "No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock. And the claim was factual at the time." ....because such a "claim" about the bleed-thru topic was most certainly NEVER "factual". It was merely an unsupportable theory and nothing more. Okay, I admit I shouldn't have used the word "lie." But tell me where in my sentence here that I am stating something that is not factual: "The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock." Is that factual or not?

No, it wasn't. Such a claim was never "factual". Are you joking? Armstrong just never bothered to check out Cadigan No. 11 to do a comparison of the money order photographs. Neither did I. And neither did anybody else (that I know of) until Tim Brennan did such a direct comparison on December 5, 2015. Do you think ALL rumors and sloppy research are "factual" until proven wrong, Sandy? If so, that's a mighty strange philosophy. David, From the very beginning I was saying that the money order appeared to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock. I did tests that seemed to confirm it. At the same time I was saying that I hoped an innocent explanation could be found so that I wouldn't have to deal with this seemingly inexplicable issue. So was I telling a lie when I said, "the money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock?" No, I wasn't. Because that is the way it appeared. What I said was factual. (For that matter, it is still factual.) Armstrong also wasn't lying when he said essentially the same thing. He made that especially clear when he said that the bleed-thru needed an explanation.

I leave that option open, Tommy. But it's really hard to tell who those guys are. UNDECIDED

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time.

While I certainly agree that the person(s) directing Humes during the autopsy negatively affected its quality, I highly doubt the same was true with the the x-ray technicians. Because, once the x-ray machine and/or patient is positioned, making settings on the machine and exposing the x-rays takes a matter of seconds. Like five seconds. How could the person(s) directing the autopsy have any affect on that?

Taking an x-ray in 1963 was a lot like taking a photograph with a fancy camera. You had nobs with various settings, shutter speed, etc., and if you didn't get them just right, your picture would be out of focus or over-exposed, etc. A diagnostic x-ray would be like a photograph for a magazine cover. You'd take a number of them, and fine-tune the image until you got one that's just right. Actually Pat, taking multiple x-rays is avoided as much as possible due to the negative affects x-ray exposure has on living tissue. Also because of the length of time required to develop the film. (These days film development isn't required, though it does take time to print the image on film.) Standard protocols are followed for each body part. These call for specific voltage (kV) and current (mA) settings, and patient positioning. (As far as I can tell by what I've seen, the exposure time (s) is fixed.) After exposure, the film is processed. The x-ray technician will check the film to make sure nothing went wrong, but usually no additional exposure is required. The x-rays of President Kennedy served a different purpose. They were just looking for metal. That's it. The quality x-ray machine was on a different floor. But the techs were told not to bother bringing Kennedy up to that machine and just bring down the out-dated WW-II ere portable x-ray machine, and look for metal. I doubt the techs would use protocols different from the standard ones they used for diagnostics. An ace technician might do so if he was certain he wouldn't have to re-take the x-ray. They took the x-rays, which were far from ideal, but were told they were good enough.

Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people.

One can learn a lot from the fact that a tip was called in anonymously. For example, in the case of the money order, I think we learn from the anonymous tip on the supposed scope mounting at Irving Sports Shop that the FBI wasn't on the same page as the assassination conspirators. The FBI was supposed to have "discovered" that the scope had been mounted there. But their premature announcement, that they had found the order for the rifle and that it showed the price to be $12.78, bungled that plan. This, among other things, tells me that those in the FBI weren't colluding with the conspirators in the CIA. The cover-up was separate from the assassination plot.

[deleted]

Well, I just assumed that those taking the x-rays would have held fragments roughly in place, or at least out of the way. I have a radiologist friend who owns a clinic, and he pays me to repair his machines, including x-ray machines. I've seen the technicians taking x-rays, and I just can't imagine them just letting things hang down and obstruct their x-rays. They would know, I am sure, that that would negatively impact the usefulness of the x-ray. They would know that the radiologist would set them straight. But then, maybe things weren't done so professionally at the JFK autopsy. It was not a diagnostic x-ray, where the techs were trying to measure the comparative density of various parts of the brain, or looking for a tumor, or a hairline fracture, etc. The x-rays were rush jobs in pursuit of metal. The doctors were trying to find bullet fragments. That's all. And it worked. They found a fragment behind the eye with a smaller fragment next to it. Excellent point, Pat. Sometimes when I'm debating something serious I forget that the investigation was anything but serious.

David, how do you explain the FBI having the order in their hands (supposedly) yet they still can't get the price right?

Chris, You are like Radar O'Reilly on M*A*S*H. You seem to post every video or still we need right before we need it! You did an awesome stabilization job on this latest video.. Anyway... so much for my "roof sniper" theory. What I don't get is, in this video, Baker appears to be going pretty close to a straight line across the street, toward the stairway handrail on our left. Yet in the video you posted earlier he seemed to be much further west as he enters the frame of the video. Appearances can be deceiving, as they say. In this latest video I do believe I detect a sudden turn to the right. Just after Baker passes behind the tall guy in the road (is that Roy Truly?), he appears to do a quick turn to our right. And he must have, given that the earlier video showed that he hadn't even reached the sidewalk by the time he was in front of the middle handrail. Anyway, it now appears that Baker did run toward the stairway, but changed his mind right after passing behind the tall guy. I stand by my earlier analysis that showed Baker to be about 16 feet from the stairway when he was right in front of the middle handrail. In that case I had some frames of reference to work with (the running girl, the sidewalk, shadows rising up the curb). I still contend that Baker was not headed toward the stairway at that time. Though, for all I know, he could have abruptly changed direction again after running off the frame of the (first) video.

You're right... I made a mistake. The motorcycle was parked near the traffic light, as you said. Here is what Baker saw when he got off his bike (other than the GoogleCam distortion): He could have gone straight across had he wanted to, but for whatever reason (maybe too many spectators) he actually went the opposite direction, but not by a long ways as far as we can tell. I'd say about 25 feet. Then he started to cross the street as he turned to the right. He passed just about where the guy on the Elm extension is in the photo above. And then passed the front entrance of the TSBD. I have a theory as to what Baker was up to. Maybe when he heard the shots, the first thought that entered his mind was "snipers on the TSBD roof." So he looked up at the roof as he was running west, and then decided to check the roof from the east side of the building. That would explain his going both directions but not to the entrance right away.

Right there in the news report they state that the order was in Oswald's handwriting. So they also SHOULD have known the price of the order, $19.95 for the rifle, or $21.45 including shipping. The price would be RIGHT THERE on the order. Yet they say the price was $12.78! Incredible. Clearly at that time they either had NO order at all and were lying, or they had a forged order for $12.78. (Or for that price plus shipping.) They supposedly found the $21.45 money order the night before. If they did have it in hand at that time (which I highly doubt), they surely were still in a state of confusion as how best to handle the mess they were in. I think this can be considered a smoking gun, Jim. (No pun intended,)