Mark Ulrik

I don't think they relied solely on McDonald's testimony. Read the section (pp. 176-80) on Oswald's arrest again. They interviewed several police officers in addition to Johnny Brewer and two patrons of the TT. So, the firing pin didn't cause the indentation in the primer, and the "click" could've been coming from (say) a retractable seat? How does that contradict the idea that the hammer was blocked by McDonald's web space? Sounds like a nothing burger to me. You must have missed the expert testimony section (p. 560) on the struggle for the revolver (and the parts of Cunningham's testimony it references).

You are, of course, exaggerating quite a bit. It's true that he once said something like that at the 1993 Chicago Symposium, and published the text in EOC, but you're making it sound like it was a mantra of his. You also didn't answer my main question. You accused him of trying to use NAA to prove Oswald's guilt. Was that also something that you "gleaned" from his newsletters? I'm not aware of his current thinking (on anything) as I'm not in the loop, but have always thought of him as a critic and a skeptic. He's obviously not a big conspiracy believer, but it may be too simplistic to put him squarely in the LN camp. Didn't you convert to LN-ism yourself for a while?

Can you point to anything Paul Hoch has written on the subject? Thank you in advance. Btw, when did he "come out" as a lone-nutter?

The idea of the FBI performing test shootings on cadavers in DP is, of course, pretty absurd. What Meagher refers to are the experiments performed by the US Army at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland at the request of the WC. Parts of their studies involved gelatine-filled skulls and cadaver wrists.

Thank you for the explanation, Sandy. I understand your ordeal much better better now. It is amazing what lighting and angles can do.

I must be getting old, but I don't remember anything about FBI shooting up cadavers in DP.

It's not a bad observation. Pat Speer, in his "Pieces of Work" chapter, makes a similar one about Mrs. Garner: "yet another employee of the school book depository who had no recollection of Oswald whatsoever and who would therefore have had no idea what a stranger in the building would look like." I think it's a bit harsh, however, to blame the witnesses for somewhat contradicting themselves in this particular case. It seems they were all put through the same rigid list of questions by the agents, and the one about "strangers" was obviously a bit tricky and should probably have been reworded into something about people "seeming out of place" or "behaving oddly."

Fair enough. But is it really that surprising that the gouge looks different from different angles?

Perhaps the 3D data could clear it up for you, but I only kept the 2D images. Why is this even an issue? Doesn't seem likely that NIST switched bullets during the CE 399 "shoot".

The gouge from different angles.

Hi there! Thanks for having me. I'm from Denmark and have been interested (on/off) in the JFKA since about the time of the 25th anniversary. In the old days, I collected way over 100 books and subscribed to various newsletters (particularly enjoyed Paul Hoch's) but ultimately ended up in the LN camp. It's unlikely that I'll ever become more than a low-frequency contributor to this forum, but some topics (e.g. related to the photographic evidence) have always been of particular interest to me. I'm a computer programmer (but not one of the rich ones). I enjoy collecting old American comic books, not least of the horror variety, and to follow chess events online.

Top: Crop of NARA evidence photo (Photo_naraevid_CE399-2) from the MFF website, resized by 575 %. This photo was apparently used by Hunt for his "Phantom Identification" article. Bottom: Crop of one of the closest matching NIST photos (399_5899) from the NARA website. Even without enhancement, apart from the resizing, I think the "T" is faintly but clearly visible in the top image.