New: "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Tim Nickerson]

You are still peddling the mind-boggling, self-discrediting fantasy that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the JFK skull x-rays are the same object, even though every medical panel that has reviewed the x-rays has identified them as two separate objects, and even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray. It takes a special kind of blind bias to cling to such raw, demonstrably erroneous fiction.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.  - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE  BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
-  Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.

[John Corbett]

Only in your poorly educated mind. For starters, the WC's scenario is hardly "complete." Good grief, the HSCA blew that myth out of the water.

Second, you're in no position to be saying whether a plausible alternative scenario has been presented (in fact, several such scenarios have been presented), because you've done so little reading on the JFK case that you don't even know what the WC said about key issues, nor do you know what leading WC defenders have said on key issues, much less what WC critics have documented.

The key questions for any reporter to answer for his/her readers/viewers are Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. The What, Where, and When are givens. The Why is unknowable. The key questions the WC has answered that the CT community as a whole can't answer is Who and How. The WC answered these questions with total clarity and with a wealth of evidence to support those answers. Name one CT who has ever been able to do that. Most CTs, you included, never even attempt to do so. You only tell us why you dismiss the WCR conclusions. You only tell us what didn't happen. The few attempts you make to tell us what did happen are deliberately vague and unsupported by credible evidence. None of you will put your cards on the table. None of you will tell us who you think did it and how it went down. If you can't do that, what is the point of your decades long efforts? If you can't explain what happened with the evidence that is available now, what is the purpose for your continued pontifications on this subject? Do you think anybody is going to care what you have to say if you can't answer the fundamental questions based on what is known now? Do you think some game changing evidence is suddenly going to appear out of nowhere? Just what purpose do you think you are serving?

[Michael T. Griffith]

I started reading it but stopped at this:

MG: Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers, p. 59; Meagher, p. 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald any kind of a package.[/quote]

I think this revealing statement is worth some additional comments. It is part of Exhibit A of your discrediting extreme bias and lack of critical thinking. You didn't even bother to see if I provided any evidence to support my statement.

When I read a lone-gunman article or book, I don't stop as soon as I encounter a claim that I consider to be invalid, even absurdly invalid. I keep reading so as to ensure I understand why the author believes the claim.

Now, would it not have been a basic, crucial investigative procedure to at least attempt to see if anyone at the post office recalled giving a large package to Oswald, or even if any postal worker merely recalled receiving a package from Klein's? Right? Isn't this a no-brainer? I mean, Crime Investigation 101 would include at least trying to establish these things, wouldn't you think? Of course it would, but it was never done.

On a side note, I see you are still peddling your utterly ludicrous, crazy claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray are the same object. This is literally the nuttiest claim I have ever seen in a JFK discussion.

What's the point of trying to reason with the guy? You [Corbett] spend a great deal of time responding to every ridiculous point that he makes. You have a great deal more patience than me.

And every time he does respond, he proves he has no business posting in this forum. He knows far less than you do, and that's saying something.

Oswald's use of the alias "Alek Hidell" is not an allegation. It's an established fact. It's not just according to the Dallas police that he was carrying an "Alek J. Hidell" ID card when he was arrested. FBI agent Manning Clements documented the contents of his wallet that day.

Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right? You know that not one of the officers who rode in the police car with Oswald from the theater to the police station said anything about finding a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet, right? You realize that the transcript of the transmissions from those officer en route to the police station say nothing about the finding of a Hidell ID card, right? 

You know that one of those officers, Sergeant Gerald Hill, gave an extensive interview on NBC TV only a few hours after Oswald's arrest and that when asked how he and the other officers identified Oswald while in the police car, (1) he said they got his name "Lee H. Oswald" from his wallet, and (2) he said nothing about finding any other ID or having any doubt about Oswald's name after checking his wallet, right?

You know that Officer Bentley, the guy who supposedly took Oswald's wallet from his pocket and found his identification therein, said nothing about finding a Hidell ID card in his 12/3/63 report to Chief Curry, right? In fact, let's read what Bentley wrote:

On the way to the city hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name. He made several remarks en route to the city hall about police brutality and denied shooting anybody. . . . I turned his identification over to Lieutenant Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's office to make a report of this arrest. (CE 2003, p. 78)

Humm, did it just "slip his mind" that he had found an ID card in Oswald's wallet that bore the name Hidell, the same name under which the whole world by then knew the alleged murder weapon had been ordered?

You clearly have read nothing but pro-WC sources on this issue.

The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's. That's a fact established by numerous questioned document experts who examined the actual money order itself.

I address this argument in my article.

That money order proves that Oswald left his place of employment on the morning of March 12, 1963. He purchased that money order at the Ervay street post office. He lied on his timesheet.

Oh! Okay! Ah-ha! So in a tightly controlled work environment where everyone in the main work area in each section worked in view of others, no one noticed that Oswald skipped out for least 25-minutes, even though Oswald was a trainee, huh?

The post office where the money order was bought was 11 blocks from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Assuming that Oswald speed-walked to the post office, that he didn't have to wait in line, and that it took him no more than 2-3 minutes to fill out the money order and have it processed and given to him -- assuming all these things, he would have been gone from his work table at least 25 minutes.

Oswald was a photoprint trainee and was assigned a trainer and worked under his supervision. But according to you, rather than just wait until his 30-minute lunch break to buy the money order, Oswald risked getting fired by skipping out for 25 minutes to go to the post office, and nobody noticed it or said a word about it, even though Oswald was unpopular with his fellow employees.

The handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon is Oswald's. The Carcano rifle bearing serial number C2766 was shipped by Klein's to Oswald's PO box.

For now, let's leave aside the numerous problems with the rifle order, the rifle that was shipped, and the alleged murder weapon. Let's look at Oswald's alleged use of the Hidell alias to order the rifle. Just for a moment pretend this is any other case and apply a modicum of common sense and critical thinking:

Why, why, why would anyone have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle, presumably for the purpose of hiding his identity as the buyer, but give his own actual post-office box number so the rifle would be sent to his own post office box?! Huh? Hello? 

You guys are unbelievably gullible when it comes to the obviously far-too-pat, far-too-convenient "evidence" against Oswald. Oswald could have easily just gone to any number of gun stores in the Dallas area and bought a rifle with no questions asked, without leaving a paper trail for the rifle that would lead authorities straight to his post office box.

But according to you folks, Oswald not only chose to risk buying the rifle with the Hidell alias while inexplicably using his actual post office box, thus leaving a damning paper trail, but he was nice enough to carry a fake Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested!

Sheesh, really? Just really?

Oswald had himself photographed holding that rifle.

Sigh. . . . Seriously? Just like that, huh? I address this claim at length in my article, but, a few questions:

Why hasn't anyone been able to duplicate the impossible variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos? Why did even the HSCA PEP experts acknowledge that the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so miniscule that they could only be identified and measured with the aid of computer software and high magnification? Why did the PEP omit the crucial Penrose measurements for the backyard figure's highly suspect chin?

His palmprint was found on the barrel of it on Nov 22, 1963 by Lt Carl Day of the DPD.

Sigh. . . .  Seriously? I address this tale in my article as well. It's seriously like you guys are stuck in a time warp and that you are oblivious to research that has been done since the 1960s.

Isn't it incredibly suspicious and unbelievable that Lt. Day failed to take a single, solitary photo of the most important print he would ever process? He took photos of the worthless trigger-guard prints, but not a single photo of the palm print. Why did the FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona say that when he examined the rifle less than 24 hours after Day claimed he found and lifted the print, the barrel contained no prints and did not even look like it had been processed for prints. Yet, Day claimed the print was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.

The WC was so suspicious of the palm print's origin that they asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement affirming how he obtained it, but Day refused to do so. Humm, why was what?

Oswald ordered Klein's Sporting Goods catalog number C20-T750 and that's what he got.

Humm, are you sure about that? Are you sure? Have you read any of the critical research on this issue? Any of it? You might want to start with Gil Jesus's article "Ten Reasons Why I Believe the 'Oswald Rifle' Isn’t Oswald’s”

MTG's unwillingness to accept those facts reflects poorly of his character.

They are not "facts." They are claims that have been debunked or reasonably explained -- mostly debunked -- numerous times over the last 40 years.

[John Corbett]

MG: Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers, p. 59; Meagher, p. 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald any kind of a package.

I think this revealing statement is worth some additional comments. It is part of Exhibit A of your discrediting extreme bias and lack of critical thinking. You didn't even bother to see if I provided any evidence to support my statement.

It was pretty much a given that you had not.

You accusing someone of extreme bias and lack of critical thinking is like Hitler accusing someone of antisemitism.

When I read a lone-gunman article or book, I don't stop as soon as I encounter a claim that I consider to be invalid, even absurdly invalid. I keep reading so as to ensure I understand why the author believes the claim.

Now, would it not have been a basic, crucial investigative procedure to at least attempt to see if anyone at the post office recalled giving a large package to Oswald, or even if any postal worker merely recalled receiving a package from Klein's? Right? Isn't this a no-brainer? I mean, Crime Investigation 101 would include at least trying to establish these things, wouldn't you think? Of course it would, but it was never done.

How many packages do you suppose your typical postal employee would handle in the course of even one month? Do you really think any of them would have remembered giving Oswald a package 8 months earlier? This is typical of the red herring issues CTs raise because they have no real evidence to support their beliefs.

The above response is an example of what critical thinking looks like.