The March 1958 "Santa Ana" X-ray--Not So
dli...@earthlink.net
of Oswald, taken on March 27, 1958 in Santa Ana, California, when
according to military records, Oswald was in Japan---indeed, the records
show he arrived at Yokosuka on 18 March 1958..
I first learned about this chronological conflict---i.e., Oswald is in
Japan, yet his X-ray is taken in California---some five years ago, when
perusing ALIAS OSWALD, by Cutler.
The information that the dental X-ray was taken in California seemed
solid---it came from an article written by Dr. Linda Norton, who did the
exhumation autopsy on LHO. And the article makes clear that she---Dr.
Norton---got the X- rays from Oswald's military file kept at the St. Louis
records center..
When I first saw that, I reasoned that the X-ray sent Dr. Norton by the
military had some sort of metal block in the field of view, or was in some
manner authoritatively marked to indicate that it was taken in Santa Ana,
California on March 27 1958, just as she had written was the case.
In a recent post, Art Swanson wrote "the whole megilla about two oswalds
cannot be disputed until
> someone explains why the skull examined after exhumation had all
> its normal cpmplement of upper front teeth....and dr norton says
> that this agrees with the xrays taken in calif. feb. 1958...of
> lee harvey oswald..... "
And he added: "how was that xray taken in calif in feb 1958 ...and the pay
> records in the wc vols show that lho was in the far east all the
> spring of 1958......???????
Of course, to the "two Oswald" crowd, this piece of evidence was a
godsend; their "jewel in the crown."
Well, I was also intrigued by this matter---not because I thought that it
indicated "two Oswalds" ---I did not believe that at all. Rather, I
thought the March 1958 dental X-ray "taken in California" would be
excellent documentary evidence that in the middle of his Marine tour, and
when he was supposed to be in Japan, Oswald had made some sort of secret
"off the record" trip to the continental U.S.; moreover, that he must
have gotten a tooth ache or something while on that trip (and so had to
see a dentist) and so the dental X-ray was an accidentally created
footprint, a piece of evidence which definitively placed Oswald, who was
supposed to be in Japan, back in the U.S.---at least on Mar 27, 1958, the
day that X-ray was taken.
Now that is a very interesting hypothesis, but before going forward with
it---and particularly, before putting it into a book---I sought a way to
deteremine just what the X-ray Dr. Norton was looking at showed. In
short, did it actually contain markings which said, "Taken at El Toro" and
with a date?
Pursuing this matter, I arranged to speak to Dr. Linda Norton about it,
and we ended up speaking about it for hours, as a matter of fact.
The first telephone meeting was arranged by someone who knew Dr. Norton
quite well, and after hearing my statement of the problem, Dr. Norton
brought to her desk all the key materials sent to her by the St. Louis
Records Center and also other records that she used to prepare her
article.
During the second phone call, I learned the full story behind why Dr
Norton wrote that the March, 1958 X-ray was taken in California; and, to
my considerable disappointment, learned that the whole thing was an error.
To begin with, the x-ray from the military did not contain any markings on
it that said it was taken in California. That was my supposition, and it
was simply incorrect.
What did happen was that Dr. Norton, in reading various Warren Commission
documents---and specifically, documents that were actually published in
the 26 volumes, misread---that's right, she MISread and misunderstood---a
key document giving Oswald's location during different periods when he was
in the Marine.
The mistake Dr. Norton made was a mistake that I, or Paul Hoch, or Peter
Dale Scott, would immediately have spotted. But she didn't. And so she
went ahead and, in writing the article, and in writing what seemed to be a
perfectly routine sentence, MISstated the facts, and wrote the sentence in
the footnote that has been the focus of so much attention and which has
led numerous researchers to accept as solid fact that the March 1958 X-ray
was taken in California.
In short, the information did NOT come from the X-ray itself. It came from
Dr. Norton's misunderstanding; and incorrect inferences based on documents
in the 26 volumes.
During our call, I told her that, for the sake of completeness, there
should be some sort of correction made. She agreed, but pointed out that
she was a very busy person. After the call, I think I called or fax'd
Jeremy Gunn, but I'm not sure.
In any event, I watched with some sadness as my "evidence" for a "secret
trip" to the US, while Oswald was in Japan, went down the drain.
I haven't posted on this before, and apparently word hasn't reached many
of the "two-Oswald" researchers that this is the explanation for the March
1958 X-ray, supposedly taken in California, while Oswald was in Japan.
Well, now the secret is out..
But here's a question I have to ask many of them---Jack White, Jim
Hargrove, John Armstrong, etc: instead of postulating something like that,
and basing your whole outloook on it---did it ever occur to any of you to
call Dr. Norton, and do what I did? i.e., ask her to explain why she wrote
that footnote in the article about the LHO Oswald exhumation autopsy?
Apparently not.
Indeed, what has always amazed me about this was that everyone was taking
for granted a "best case scenario" with the x-ray---that because this
information appeared in the footnote of the Norton article, why it just
had to be true.
But if this matter had come up a trial, no attorney would behave that way.
Any attorney would know to go back to the source and ask, "Why did you
write that?"
Apparently, the two-Oswald" researchers don't function that way. And so
the idea is continually promoted that this X-ray "proves" two Oswald's and
no one has bothered to question the source of the statement.
Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
"California X-ray" (which, supposedly, "was actually taken in Japan") and
when you take away the arguments based on the supposed forging of the W-2
forms (another Armstrong error, this based on two incorrect letters sent
him by someone in the IRS) ---what's left of the Armstrong theory?
Very little, I'm afraid.
As I said above, and this is my opinion, its one big Nothingburger.
Now pardon me while I take an alka seltzer.
David Lifton
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dli...@earthlink.net
Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
"California X-ray" (which in fact was actually taken in Japan, which is
where Oswald was at the time) and when you take away the arguments based
jack white
BUT FROM MEMORY, THE BITE-WING XRAYS TAKEN AT SANTA ANA
ARE THE ONLY DENTAL XRAYS ON THE LHO MEDICAL RECORDS IN
THE 26 VOLUMES. ON THE DATE LISTED FOR THESE XRAYS,
LHO WAS IN THE PHILIPPINES. IT IS THESE XRAYS NORTON
CITES AS BEING HER REFERENCE. AS FOR LINDA NORTON, JIM MARRS
INTERVIEWED HER AT LENGTH...BEFORE SHE **REMEMBERED**
NOTING THAT THE CALVARIUM HAD A CRANIOTOMY. AFTER BEING
TIPPED OFF BY MARRS THAT A CRANIOTOMY WAS EXISTED, SHE
MENTIONED IT IN HER LONG-DELAYED REPORT. IT WAS TOO LATE
BY THEN TO PHOTOGRAPH IT, SINCE THE BODY WAS BACK IN THE
GROUND. THE SKULL PHOTOS SHOW NO CRANIOTOMY.
JACK
art a swanson
armstrong is going to present three live witnesses who
knew the second lho..... perhaps we can discuss the speed of sound
have a nice day :-) your fan, art
Tony Pitman
> Apparently, the two-Oswald" researchers don't function that way. And
> so
> the idea is continually promoted that this X-ray "proves" two Oswald's
> and
> no one has bothered to question the source of the statement.
>
> Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
> "California X-ray" (which, supposedly, "was actually taken in Japan")
> and
> when you take away the arguments based on the supposed forging of the
> W-2
> forms (another Armstrong error, this based on two incorrect letters
> sent
> him by someone in the IRS) ---what's left of the Armstrong theory?
>
> David Lifton
>
I was under the impression that it was only the Welfare Dept. that got new
computers in 1964 and not the IRS. I also thought that they were two
totally indepentant govt. departments. How does the fact that the Welfare
outfit issued new ID nos in '64 have any bearing on what the IRS does?
Tony
Barb Junkkarinen
>dli...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Apparently, the two-Oswald" researchers don't function that way. And
>> so
>> the idea is continually promoted that this X-ray "proves" two Oswald's
>> and
>> no one has bothered to question the source of the statement.
>>
>> Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
>> "California X-ray" (which, supposedly, "was actually taken in Japan")
>> and
>> when you take away the arguments based on the supposed forging of the
>> W-2
>> forms (another Armstrong error, this based on two incorrect letters
>> sent
>> him by someone in the IRS) ---what's left of the Armstrong theory?
>>
>> David Lifton
>>
>
>I was under the impression that it was only the Welfare Dept. that got new
>computers in 1964 and not the IRS. I also thought that they were two
>totally indepentant govt. departments. How does the fact that the Welfare
>outfit issued new ID nos in '64 have any bearing on what the IRS does?
>
>Tony
Hi Tony,
I haven't heard anything about the welfare system computers, but these
quotes from IRS Annual Reports have been posted a time or two:
QUOTE
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1964 Annual Report
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1964
-
p.xxi
-
[This is a map of the IRS regions and districts. It shows
that the Louisiana district was in the Southwest Region]
p. 12
Effective January 1, 1964, as planned, two more regions
began processing returns under the master file concept.
With new service centers located at Austin, Tex., and
Cincinnati, Ohio, serving the Southwest and Central regions,
respectively. the expansion of the Business Master File was
accomplished without major problems. At the end of the [fiscal]
year, the Business Master File contained over 2.3 million
tax-payer entities, or accounts, and increase of 95 percent
since July 1, 1963.
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1961 Annual Report
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1961
-
p.24
-
The National Computer Center at Martinsburg, W. Va., due for
completion in the fall of 1961, will be the "heart" of the
ADP [Automatic Data Processing] system. When the system is
fully implemented nationwide, the center will maintain on
magnetic tape, a master file of some 75 million tax accounts
of individual and business taxpayers."
END QUOTE
Barb :-)
dlift...@my-dejanews.com
Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
> dli...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Apparently, the two-Oswald" researchers don't function that way. And
> > so
> > the idea is continually promoted that this X-ray "proves" two Oswald's
> > and
> > no one has bothered to question the source of the statement.
> >
> > Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
> > "California X-ray" (which, supposedly, "was actually taken in Japan")
> > and
> > when you take away the arguments based on the supposed forging of the
> > W-2
> > forms (another Armstrong error, this based on two incorrect letters
> > sent
> > him by someone in the IRS) ---what's left of the Armstrong theory?
> >
> > David Lifton
> >
>
> I was under the impression that it was only the Welfare Dept. that got new
> computers in 1964 and not the IRS. I also thought that they were two
> totally indepentant govt. departments. How does the fact that the Welfare
> outfit issued new ID nos in '64 have any bearing on what the IRS does?
>
> Tony
>
W-2 forms are tax forms. On which wage income is reported. This has nothing
to do with the "Welfare" department.
Certain W-2 forms were found amongst LHO's effects after the assassination
and documented that he worked at certain establishments in the 55/56 period.
Confronted by the statement of Palmer McBride, at teenage acquaintance of LHO
who worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs in the Spring of 1956 (but who mistakenly
recollected, in his FBI statement of 11/23/63, that he didn't meet LHO until
57/58), Armstrong then theorized---or rather fantasized, I think is a better
word---that there were "two Oswalds", one in New Orleanas and another in
Japan (which is where Oswald was after Sepember 57. In Spring 57, he was
still in basic training of various sorts).
Armstrong's great moment of joy came when, after being repeatedly nudged by
me to get Pfisterer and other employers to cough up tax records, he got two
letters from the Memphis IRS office saying the Employer Tax ID Numbers on the
W-2's were from January 1964.
That's when he had his great Eureka Experience.
The John Armstrong Eureka Experience---befriend him and he'll tell you all
about it---details how he then came to realize that the tax documentation
(i.e. the W-2's) found amongst LHO's personal effects after the assassination
must have been forged.
In fact, the truth is much simpler: the IRS letters are wrong. Period. And so
is the Armstrong theory (which depends on them for its validity.) The IRS
error stems from the fact that in connection with some region going to
computers in 1964, certain dates "defaulted" to Jan. 1964. THirty years
later, an IRS employee attempting to answer the questions posed by Linda
Faircloth of Pfisterer and Maury Goodman of Dolly Shoe were sent letters
incorrectly stating that those ID numbers didn't exist until Jan 1964.
Not true.
This whole matter was explored by the ARRB and the account of how the two
letters sent Armstrong were in error is dealt with in detail in documents
that will be made available when the Arcnhives raises the curtain on all the
ARRB material. (It is alluded to indirectly in the ARRB Final Report).
To repeat, the Welfare Dept has nothing to do with this, and when they went
to computers is irrelevant to this discussion.
DSL
Tony Pitman
> In article <363BB29B...@southern.co.nz>,
>
> Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > dli...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Apparently, the two-Oswald" researchers don't function that way.
> And
>
> > > so
>
> > > the idea is continually promoted that this X-ray "proves" two
> Oswald's
>
> > > and
>
> > > no one has bothered to question the source of the statement.
>
> > >
>
> > > Let me conclude by saying that when you take away the March 1958
>
> > > "California X-ray" (which, supposedly, "was actually taken in
> Japan")
>
> > > and
>
> > > when you take away the arguments based on the supposed forging of
> the
>
> > > W-2
>
> > > forms (another Armstrong error, this based on two incorrect
> letters
>
> > > sent
>
> > > him by someone in the IRS) ---what's left of the Armstrong theory?
>
> > >
>
That was my point. I'm familiar with what John Armstrong wrote on this
and I recall that last year John McAdams posted something along the same
lines as you about a department getting new computers in Jan '64 which
explained this.
I have no idea what the ARRB did and would very much like to read it.
At the time though the dept. that John McAdams was talking about turned
out to be the Social Welfare dept (or whatever it is called in the U.S.)
and not the IRS which got computers in that state.
I did notice that Oswald's number, when compared to other people's
numbers fitted into a series of numbers that were issued when John
Armstrong said it was so I'm wondering how come theirs don't reflect
this change as well.
Tony