Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

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

===========

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. And while you're at it, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.

Poppycock!

  The Bronson film is too poor quality to make any possible distinction of ANYTHING McIntire or Hickey are doing when the film is blown up or otherwise enhanced, plus the film ends too abruptly after the fatal shotyto capture any such things.

Don't waste your time on this guy, Steve. He has been peddling the laughable "Hickey did it" crap on multiple forums and newsgroups for the past many years.

I've already proved to you in numerous exchanges in this forum that every one of these arguments is either false or misleading or irrelevant.

You've declared that many times. We have yet to see the proof.

And I notice you again made no effort to explain the facts that validate the HSCA's acoustical findings.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in all these highly technical fields pertaining to the JFKA. i've seen how foolish you make yourself look when you try,

Let's try this: How about if you just answer one straightforward question? Here it is:

If the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, how did N-waves get on the dictabelt -- not crude, superficial N-waves from random noise but gunfire N-waves with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, and only when the microphone was in position to record them?

There are no muzzle blasts on the Dictabelt recording. That much I do know. I know what a muzzle blast from a rifle sounds like and it sounds nothing like the impulses on the recording.

I'll even give you a big hint: The NRC/NAS panel did not even mention the N-wave evidence, much less try to explain it, even though they knew it was a major item of evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably cited as powerful support for their findings.

Apparently, they too recognized those weren't muzzle blasts.

Ah, heck, I'll give you another big hint: The Linsker group (Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey) that responded to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence did not lay a finger on the N-wave evidence either, even though four of them had served on the NRC/NAS panel and thus were well aware that this was a major item of evidence that the panel had ignored.

They also didn't hear muzzle blasts.

I'll even give you some study notes to help you answer the question.

Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT:

Moreover, an "N-wave," characteristic of supersonic gunfire, appeared in each dictabelt impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the third shot [i.e., 144.9 impulse pattern/the grassy knoll shot]. (The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory:

In Dealey Plaza, echoes from gunshot test patterns arrive in two discrete [different] clusters, differing in time by about 190 ms. Echoes originating from structures along Elm Street arrive within 85 ms, while echoes from structures farther back on Houston Street arrive in the last 95 ms of a typical 370-ms-duration test pattern. In addition, a “muzzle blast” is usually prominent at the beginning of a gunshot acoustical pattern, while an N-wave (a shock wave traveling faster than the speed of sound due to the rifle bullet exceeding the sound barrier) arrives prior to the muzzle blast. The waveform identified as the grassy knoll shot is shown in figure 13. The presence of an N-wave in this waveform was consistent with the acoustical signature of a supersonic rifle bullet. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, 2010 pp. 101-102)

Being a mathematician or a physicist does not qualify one as an expert in acoustics. What we have are conflicting opinions of people who are experts as to whether the Dictabelt recording is of gunshots fired during the assassination. Jurors in both civil and criminal cases are often presented with conflicting expert testimony. They are tasked with determining which side has presented the more credible expert testimony. One of the ways they have of doing that is determining which viewpoint fits the body of evidence as a whole. There is absolutely no other credible evidence of a gunshot on the GK. No bullets were recovered except for the two fired by Oswald's rifle. No discarded shells were found except for the three in the sniper's nest which was on the same floor as Oswald's rifle which was positively matched to the only recovered bullets and shells. Neither JFK nor JBC were hit by shots fired fro anywhere in front of them. A witness with a perfect view of the area behind the stockade fence didn't see a shooter at any time before, during, or after he heard the shots. Neither did any of the people who raced to that area following the shots. In short, their is no credible evidence to corroborate the opinion that the Dictabelt recorded gunshots during the shooting. That makes it easy for me to decide whether to believe the experts who said the recording was of gunshots or the experts who said it was not. 

Umm, no, that's not a double negative.

Sheesh. . . . 

English 101.

AI says otherwise

Is “Not Inaccurate” a Double Negative?
Yes — “not inaccurate” is a double negative in English grammar. It contains two negative elements: the negative adverb not and the negative adjective inaccurate

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Why does anybody believe anything that Tosh Plumlee says?

That said, the call to Hurt is mysterious. What would be the purpose of some conspirator giving Oswald Hurt's number? What was supposed to happen if he actually was able to reach him? Hurt was on permanent disability from work, was a raging alcoholic and would have been of less than zero use to a person who was facing death row for two murders...