JFK's Clothing

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Having learned much from the actions of Specter & Company during the admission of the altered survey data into evidence, an understanding of certain methods employed to confuse; manipulate; and misrepresent the evidence presented by the WC became understood.

Once the means and methods are understood, there is little difficulty in spotting/recognizing the "red flags" of these manipulations.

The clothing of JFK is a similar item.

Anyone who has taken the time to review what was presented previously, now knows that the coat worn by JFK was admitted into evidence during the questioning of Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon.

As part of this admission into evidence, the coat had some sort of "note" attached to it.*

*It should be noted that just prior to testifying, each witness was more or less "rehearsed" by Specter.

In many instances, the witness actually discusses what was previously discussed off the record, before the actual testimony which became the record.

At any rate, the admission into evidence of the coat of JFK during the testimony of the Autopsy surgeons, with a note attached which claimed that the upper hole in the coat represented where a comparison sample was taken, immediately called for a "flag" on the playing field.

There was no "chain" of introduction of this coat and it's reported laboratory testing. Just, out of the blue, here is the coat, and here is a note!

Thereafter, FBI Agent Frazier discussed the coat and indicated that the hole was also where a comparison sample had be taken by personnel within the FBI Laboratory.

Having spoken with FBI Agent Frazier in regards to the bullets and bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in approaching him as to the source of his statements regarding examination of the coat of JFK.

Frazier informed me that he thought that this information came from FBI Agent Gallagher who, if recalled correctly was in charge of the Spectrographic analysis section of the lab, which was the section which examined the clothing of JFK.

Also, having spoken with Agent Gallagher in regards to the Oak Ridge testing of bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in speaking with him again in regards to the testing of the clothing of JFK.

Agent Gallagher informed me that he had absolutely no personal involvment with the testing of the coat; shirt; & tie of JFK, and he thought that either FBI Agents Heilman or Heiberger were probably the ones who did this.

He also stated that he had no part in informing Frazier of anything related to the testing of the clothing since he had nothing to do with that examination.*

*I re-called Frazier and brought this out, at which time Frazier stated that if it was not Gallagher, then he really did not know or recall who it was that informed him that the hole at the edge of the coat collar was where a comparison sample had been taken.

In location of FBI Agent Heilman, he informed me that he had nothing to do with this testing, and infomed me that he was frequently utilized as more or less the courier between FBI Headquarters and Oak Ridge, and that Gallagher and the other agent that helped Gallagher at Oak Ridge should recall this.

He also stated that at one point he stayed at Oak Ridge and assisted Gallagher in the mathmatical calculations on the NAA. (Pre-hand held computer days remember)

So, back to Gallagher, who then reported that yes, he recalled that Agent Heilman did as he had said, however he did not know that Heilman had nothing to do with the analysis of the clothing of JFK. He had just thought that since he was in Washington, D.C. part of the time that he may have had some part in this examination.

Thereafter, Gallagher informed me that the only person left would be FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

After narrowing the scope down to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger, I located and spoke with him.

And, the effort to locate him was well rewarded.

As a quick synopsis of our discussions:

1. He examined the hole in the president's coat which was located some 6 or so inches down from the collar.

2. He X-rayed the hole, which revealed metallic residue.

3. He removed a portion of the fabric around the edge of the hole and ran spectrographic analysis on the metallic residue.

4. The residue was copper.

5. He took no "comparison sample" from any location on the coat.*

*Agent Heiberger stated that since the metallic residue appeared on the X-ray only on the edges of fibers located at the entrance hole, and there was no indication of any such metallic residue anywhere else in the X-ray, and since copper is not normally an element of construction in a coat, there was hardly any use in taking any "comparison" sample.

Agent Heiberger also stated that when a comparison sample is taken for any reason, that it is taken as close to the actual area of damage as possible.

In the case of JFK's jacket, had such a comparison sample been taken, that it would have been taken directly adjacent to the existing damage/hole, and that the comparison sample removal area would have been circled in chalk for identification.

I thereafter asked Agent Heiberger if he knew anything in regards to the hole located at the edge of the coat collar of JFK's coat, to which he replied that he had no knowledge of it.

When I asked if this was where a comparison sample could have been taken, he replied with the same description of where and how a comparison sample is taken and then also interjected in that no comparison sample would have been taken up there where hair cream and even possibly makeup could affect the outcome of the testing.

Therein, you have, as relayed to me directly from the only FBI Agent known to examine the clothing of JFK, what is known as regards the "comparison sample" which reportedly created a hole throught the jacket and liner, and is located at the edge of the coat collar of the coat worn by JFK.

However, there is, as they say, much, much, more.

Since we were on the topic of the clothing of JFK, I decided that I may as well ask as many questions related to this topic as I could.

I therefore asked Agent Heibeger about examination of the shirt worn by JFK.

To this, Agent Heiberger responded that he had never seen and had nothing to do with examination of the shirt. But, since the coat pretty well proved that a copper jacketed bullet had passed through it, examination of the shirt would not have been of any great importance.

With this, I discussed the slit in the shirt at the vicinity of the button.

Again, Agent Heiberger stated that he knew nothing of this, and that he would not have as he did not examine the shirt, and that perhaps one of the other agents had done this examination.

Thereafter, we discussed the "nick" on the tie.

To this, Agent Heiberger stated that he was not certain of what I was talking about.

I again referenced the "nick" on the tie, to which he stated that there was no "nick".

Agent Heiberger stated that the tie contained a small abraised area, but that none of the tie fabric was gone.

That he had X-rayed the tie in this abrasion location and that the X-ray had revealed small metallic residue embedded in the fabric of the tie at the area of abrasion.

Thereafter, he stated that I must be confusing the "nick" with an area of fabric removal in which one of the other FBI Agents from the lab cut and removed a piece of the fabric to examine and determine the nature of the metallic residue.

With this information, I returned to Gallagher, Heilman, and there was one other Agent who was with Gallagher at Oak Ridge (can not recall his name).

All repeated that they had absolutely nothing to do with any examination of the clothing of JFK and that if Henry Heiberger did not do it, then it was not done.

Back to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

Agent Heiberber informed me that he had absolutely no idea as to what may or may not have been done after his initial testing of the clothing as stated. He also stated that an FBI Lab Test Report was completed for each and every test on each and every item of evidence. That these lab test reports should be available and that they would demonstrate exactly what he had said, each item that was tested, and the exact tests which he conducted on the items.

Thereafter, I asked why he (Agent Heiberger) had not been called to testify before the Warren Commission, and this is when the story of the "Oswald was here" written in chalk was brought out.

All that he knew was that the FBI received an "anonymous" call which reported having observed "Oswald was here" written on an abandoned railroad boxcar, in Georgia.

He, (Agent Heiberger) was dispatched to Georgia to investigate this.

Upon arriving, he was shown the crime scene and photo's were taken.

Thereafter, he took scrapings of the chalk from the grafitti.

Upon returning to the Washington, DC Lab, Agent Heiberger was directed to run tests to determine who made the chalk.

His EXACT words to me on this were:

"I don't know what the hell that was all about. That was the biggest waste of my time. I eventually found out who made the chalk but it proved nothing, and we all knew that Oswald was dead and buried".

You be the judge of "What the hell that was all about"!

Tom

P.S. For anyone who may not be aware of the fact, all statements claim that there was no metallic residue found in/on the tie of JFK.

This statement appears to have originated in a letter which was written by J. Edgar Hoover in which he states that examination of the coat worn by JFK revealed copper around the edge of the entry hole, however, no copper was found on examination of the tie.

One should note the wording of the letter of JEH.

[JL Allen]

It's those minute, obscure details - such as the note explaining the supposed "taking of a sample" from such a controversial, surely forbidden, location on the coat (where a bullet had actually penetrated) - that repeatedly reveal what a thoroughly sickening and repulsive pack-of-lies was the entire ruse - top to bottom, front to back. The mind-boggling number of instances similar to this where standard procedures are abandoned - evidence altered, lost, destroyed - excuses made, alibis constructed, memories gone blank - reveal it all to be precisely what many suspected from the start. The tiny throat wound becomes a gaping exit wound - Ford changes the diagram - the bullet hole in the back becomes a "fabric sample" - the Mauser is a Carcano - and some of the bullets don't match the guns. Specter's Magic Bullet Theory should have been presented by the comedian, Gallagher - while he smashed watermelons and grapefruit.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

It's those minute, obscure details - such as the note explaining the supposed "taking of a sample" from such a controversial,  surely forbidden, location on the coat (where a bullet had actually penetrated) - that repeatedly reveal what a thoroughly sickening and repulsive pack-of-lies was the entire ruse - top to bottom, front to back.  The mind-boggling number of instances similar to this where standard procedures are abandoned - evidence altered, lost, destroyed - excuses made, alibis constructed, memories gone blank - reveal it all to be precisely what many suspected from the start.  The tiny throat wound becomes a gaping exit wound - Ford changes the diagram - the bullet hole in the back becomes a "fabric sample" - the Mauser is a Carcano - and some of the bullets don't match the guns.  Specter's Magic Bullet Theory should have been presented by the comedian, Gallagher - while he smashed watermelons and grapefruit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All that one has to do to know where to look in the WC is think "OJ"!

At any point in time that something is observed, which either would not be allowed in a properly administered court of law, or could not occur without a complete objection from opposing council, then the path is well defined.

Those items at which some prosecuting attornies and defense attornies excell.

There were of course other means applied other than the mere manner in which evidence was or was not admitted, and although gainfully employed in presentation of other facts and information, if desired, I would be more than glad to share the "roadmap" as to what one should look for when reviewing the WC testimony and documents.

Hope you enjoyed the "note from mom" scenario on the manipulation of this evidence.

Tom

P.S. I know that Frazier is still living in the event anyone wishes to call him and discuss the subject.

I could still attempt to call the old numbers of Gallagher, Heilman, and Heiberger, but it is unknow as to whether they are even still living.

And besides that, I have no need to verify with them what I verified over 20 years ago.

[John Dolva]

Tom, with regards to Kennedy's back brace. I can find little information beyond a photo of it cleaned and folded. Little information appears to exist. Whether that is because it is an 'unmentionable' private thing or perhaps irrelevant. I don't know.

Are you aware of anything with regards to the brace as it came off Kennedy, its condition, photographs, descriptions etc?

[Mark Knight]

John, go to the Earl Smith thread, and you'll find a photo of JFK wearing the back brace. Whether this is the same model that he wore in the Dallas motorcade, I can't say...but it is suggestive of how one might have fit, and any effects it might or might not have had.

BTW, John, your work re: the Connally wounds has impressed me.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, with regards to Kennedy's back brace. I can find little information beyond a photo of it cleaned and folded. Little information appears to exist. Whether that is because it is an 'unmentionable' private thing or perhaps irrelevant. I don't know.

Are you aware of anything with regards to the brace as it came off Kennedy, its condition, photographs, descriptions etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is extremely limited discussion of the back brace removal in the questioning of Parkland Hospital Emergency Room personnel.

Seems that it was one of the nurses, just do not recall, as you have stated, there appears to be little relevancy to it other than somewhat holding JFK rather ridgid and stiff.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Having learned much from the actions of Specter & Company during the admission of the altered survey data into evidence, an understanding of certain methods employed to confuse; manipulate; and misrepresent the evidence presented by the WC became understood.

Once the means and methods are understood, there is little difficulty in spotting/recognizing the "red flags" of these manipulations.

The clothing of JFK is a similar item.

Anyone who has taken the time to review what was presented previously, now knows that the coat worn by JFK was admitted into evidence during the questioning of Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon.

As part of this admission into evidence, the coat had some sort of "note" attached to it.*

*It should be noted that just prior to testifying, each witness was more or less "rehearsed" by Specter.

In many instances, the witness actually discusses what was previously discussed off the record, before the actual testimony which became the record.

At any rate, the admission into evidence of the coat of JFK during the testimony of the Autopsy surgeons, with a note attached which claimed that the upper hole in the coat represented where a comparison sample was taken, immediately called for a "flag" on the playing field.

There was no "chain" of introduction of this coat and it's reported laboratory testing.  Just, out of the blue, here is the coat, and here is a note!

Thereafter, FBI Agent Frazier discussed the coat and indicated that the hole was also where a comparison sample had be taken by personnel within the FBI Laboratory.

Having spoken with FBI Agent Frazier in regards to the bullets and bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in approaching him as to the source of his statements regarding examination of the coat of JFK.

Frazier informed me that he thought that this information came from FBI Agent Gallagher who, if recalled correctly was in charge of the Spectrographic analysis section of the lab, which was the section which examined the clothing of JFK.

Also, having spoken with Agent Gallagher in regards to the Oak Ridge testing of bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in speaking with him again in regards to the testing of the clothing of JFK.

Agent Gallagher informed me that he had absolutely no personal involvment with the testing of the coat; shirt; & tie of JFK, and he thought that either FBI Agents Heilman or Heiberger were probably the ones who did this.

He also stated that he had no part in informing Frazier of anything related to the testing of the clothing since he had nothing to do with that examination.*

*I re-called Frazier and brought this out, at which time Frazier stated that if it was not Gallagher, then he really did not know or recall who it was that informed him that the hole at the edge of the coat collar was where a comparison sample had been taken.

In location of FBI Agent Heilman, he informed me that he had nothing to do with this testing, and infomed me that he was frequently utilized as more or less the courier between FBI Headquarters and Oak Ridge, and that Gallagher and the other agent that helped Gallagher at Oak Ridge should recall this.

He also stated that at one point he stayed at Oak Ridge and assisted Gallagher in the mathmatical calculations on the NAA.  (Pre-hand held computer days remember)

So, back to Gallagher, who then reported that yes, he recalled that Agent Heilman did as he had said, however he did not know that Heilman had nothing to do with the analysis of the clothing of JFK. He had just thought that since he was in Washington, D.C. part of the time that he may have had some part in this examination.

Thereafter, Gallagher informed me that the only person left would be FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

After narrowing the scope down to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger, I located and spoke with him.

And, the effort to locate him was well rewarded.

As a quick synopsis of our discussions:

1.  He examined the hole in the president's coat which was located some 6 or so inches down from the collar.

2.  He X-rayed the hole, which revealed metallic residue.

3.  He removed a portion of the fabric around the edge of the hole and ran spectrographic analysis on the metallic residue.

4.  The residue was copper.

5.  He took no "comparison sample" from any location on the coat.*

*Agent Heiberger stated that since the metallic residue appeared on the X-ray only on the edges of fibers located at the entrance hole, and there was no indication of any such metallic residue anywhere else in the X-ray, and since copper is not normally an element of construction in a coat, there was hardly any use in taking any "comparison" sample.

Agent Heiberger also stated that when a comparison sample is taken for any reason, that it is taken as close to the actual area of damage as possible.

In the case of JFK's jacket, had such a comparison sample been taken, that it would have been taken directly adjacent to the existing damage/hole, and that the comparison sample removal area would have been circled in chalk for identification.

I thereafter asked Agent Heiberger if he knew anything in regards to the hole located at the edge of the coat collar of JFK's coat, to which he replied that he had no knowledge of it.

When I asked if this was where a comparison sample could have been taken, he replied with the same description of where and how a comparison sample is taken and then also interjected in that no comparison sample would have been taken up there where hair cream and even possibly makeup could affect the outcome of the testing.

Therein, you have, as relayed to me directly from the only FBI Agent known to examine the clothing of JFK, what is known as regards the "comparison sample" which reportedly created a hole throught the jacket and liner, and is located at the edge of the coat collar of the coat worn by JFK.

However, there is, as they say, much, much, more.

Since we were on the topic of the clothing of JFK, I decided that I may as well ask as many questions related to this topic as I could.

I therefore asked Agent Heibeger about examination of the shirt worn by JFK.

To this, Agent Heiberger responded that he had never seen and had nothing to do with examination of the shirt. But, since the coat pretty well proved that a copper jacketed bullet had passed through it, examination of the shirt would not have been of any great importance.

With this, I discussed the slit in the shirt at the vicinity of the button.

Again, Agent Heiberger stated that he knew nothing of this, and that he would not have as he did not examine the shirt, and that perhaps one of the other agents had done this examination.

Thereafter, we discussed the "nick" on the tie.

To this, Agent Heiberger stated that he was not certain of what I was talking about.

I again referenced the "nick" on the tie, to which he stated that there was no "nick".

Agent Heiberger stated that the tie contained a small abraised area, but that none of the tie fabric was gone.

That he had X-rayed the tie in this abrasion location and that the X-ray had revealed small metallic residue embedded in the fabric of the tie at the area of abrasion.

Thereafter, he stated that I must be confusing the "nick" with an area of fabric removal in which one of the other FBI Agents from the lab cut and removed a piece of the fabric to examine and determine the nature of the metallic residue.

With this information, I returned to Gallagher, Heilman, and there was one other Agent who was with Gallagher at Oak Ridge (can not recall his name).

All repeated that they had absolutely nothing to do with any examination of the clothing of JFK and that if Henry Heiberger did not do it, then it was not done.

Back to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

Agent Heiberber informed me that he had absolutely no idea as to what may or may not have been done after his initial testing of the clothing as stated.  He also stated that an FBI Lab Test Report was completed for each and every test on each and every item of evidence.  That these lab test reports should be available and that they would demonstrate exactly what he had said, each item that was tested, and the exact tests which he conducted on the items.

Thereafter, I asked why he (Agent Heiberger) had not been called to testify before the Warren Commission, and this is when the story of the "Oswald was here" written in chalk was brought out.

All that he knew was that the FBI received an "anonymous" call which reported having observed "Oswald was here" written on an abandoned railroad boxcar, in Georgia.

He, (Agent Heiberger) was dispatched to Georgia to investigate this.

Upon arriving, he was shown the crime scene and photo's were taken.

Thereafter, he took scrapings of the chalk from the grafitti.

Upon returning to the Washington, DC Lab, Agent Heiberger was directed to run tests to determine who made the chalk.

His EXACT words to me on this were:

"I don't know what the hell that was all about.  That was the biggest waste of my time.  I eventually found out who made the chalk but it proved nothing, and we all knew that Oswald was dead and buried".

You be the judge of "What the hell that was all about"!

Tom

P.S.  For anyone who may not be aware of the fact, all statements claim that there was no metallic residue found in/on the tie of JFK.

This statement appears to have originated in a letter which was written by J. Edgar Hoover in which he states that examination of the coat worn by JFK revealed copper around the edge of the entry hole, however, no copper was found on examination of the tie.

One should note the wording of the letter of JEH.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since FBI Agent Frazier was under the original thought that he received the JFK clothing analysis from FBI Agent Gallagher, it would appear that this letter may be the source of that.

Gallagher Exhibit# 1 (this letter) was admitted into evidence during the questioning of FBI Agent Gallagher and discussion of NAA work.

The wording of the letter is quite evasive in that it refers to "no copper" in excess of that present elsewhere.

Which, would be ZERO.

Most curious, that JEH inadvertedly neglects to mention the other substance of manufacture in the bullets.

That being Lead!

Edited August 6, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, with regards to Kennedy's back brace. I can find little information beyond a photo of it cleaned and folded. Little information appears to exist. Whether that is because it is an 'unmentionable' private thing or perhaps irrelevant. I don't know.

Are you aware of anything with regards to the brace as it came off Kennedy, its condition, photographs, descriptions etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is extremely limited discussion of the back brace removal in the questioning of Parkland Hospital Emergency Room personnel.

Seems that it was one of the nurses, just do not recall, as you have stated, there appears to be little relevancy to it other than somewhat holding JFK rather ridgid and stiff.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Somewhere, there are of course many other photo's and drawings.

However, having dug through these boxes so much over the years, and knowing that several more boxes are in one of the several sheds, it is easier to explain a few items and ask if perhaps Robin or others can assist as finding these items is time consuming and difficult.

1. JFK's tie.

Although I found the large photo, there is a blowup/enlargment out there somewhere which clearly shows the reported "Nick".

This "nick" is in fact an almost perfectly oval area of fabric removal, and anyone with any knowledge of bullets and damage to fabrics should easily recognize that this uniform circular/football shaped area of fabric removal is not something which was created by a bullet.

From my direct discussions with FBI Agent Henry Heiberger and his statements that the tie contained an "abrasion" area which he X-rayed and revealed metallic residue, then this area of tie removal would have had to be done to eliminate the possibility that anyone would find lead embedded in the tie.

Had this metallic residue potentially been copper, then rest assured that we would have heard of it in support of the SBT.

Under the assumption that the FBI knew exactly how CE399 came to exist, (which they obviously did or else they would neither have cut and removed the tree limbs from the live oak tree; made the fragment from CE840 disappear; and thereafter assisted in the staged re-enactment and coverup of the facts) then one can safely assume that it was known that the metallic residue could not be copper.

Therefore it had to disappear.

If anyone has a copy of the enlargement photo which clearly shows the nature of the fabric removal from the ties, please post it.

I can not locate mine.

2. JFK's coat and shirt entry closeups.

Likewise, I can not seem to locate my copies of the closeup of the entrance holes in these two items.

When one looks at these entry holes, especially the shirt hole which for all practical purposes matches the outline of the base of CE399, one sees that considerable fabric was "punched out" by the entering bullet.

A normal bullet entry does not do this.

In fact, a normal entry through such fabric is almost not visible and if one rubbed the fabric between the fingers, it would be extremely difficult to even see the penetration.

This, as stated previously, is due to the manner in which the rounded nose of the bullet more or less pushes the fabric aside as it drills it's way through the fabric.

Somewhere, I have the matching coat and shirt entry holes for the previously demonstrated "wadcutter" bullet, as well as a normal entry penetration through a coat and tie.

Can not find them now, however, rest assured that a normal 6.5mm Carcano bullet penetration through the coat and shirt DO NOT create penetrations in which large amounts, or for that matter any amount of fabric removal can be identified.

And, if one will check with any qualified forensic pathologist, they will inform that it is unusual for fabric to be carried into the wound of entry, especially for small type 6.5mm bullets.

If someone has the enlargements of the penetration holes through the coat and shirt of JFK, posting of them will be appreciated.

I would like to find my comparison photo's and will make another attempt to do so, in order that all can see that the 4mm X 7mm deformed/flat base of CE399 is what created the large "punch-type" holes in the coat and shirt of JFK, thereby carrying this fabric down into the wound of entry.

The wadcutter bullet created holes in the test coat and shirt which for all purposes are similar to the JFK clothing, while the normal bullet penetration made only a small visible penetration with no indication of fabric removal in either the coat or tie.

Thanks,

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Having learned much from the actions of Specter & Company during the admission of the altered survey data into evidence, an understanding of certain methods employed to confuse; manipulate; and misrepresent the evidence presented by the WC became understood.

Once the means and methods are understood, there is little difficulty in spotting/recognizing the "red flags" of these manipulations.

The clothing of JFK is a similar item.

Anyone who has taken the time to review what was presented previously, now knows that the coat worn by JFK was admitted into evidence during the questioning of Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon.

As part of this admission into evidence, the coat had some sort of "note" attached to it.*

*It should be noted that just prior to testifying, each witness was more or less "rehearsed" by Specter.

In many instances, the witness actually discusses what was previously discussed off the record, before the actual testimony which became the record.

At any rate, the admission into evidence of the coat of JFK during the testimony of the Autopsy surgeons, with a note attached which claimed that the upper hole in the coat represented where a comparison sample was taken, immediately called for a "flag" on the playing field.

There was no "chain" of introduction of this coat and it's reported laboratory testing. Just, out of the blue, here is the coat, and here is a note!

Thereafter, FBI Agent Frazier discussed the coat and indicated that the hole was also where a comparison sample had be taken by personnel within the FBI Laboratory.

Having spoken with FBI Agent Frazier in regards to the bullets and bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in approaching him as to the source of his statements regarding examination of the coat of JFK.

Frazier informed me that he thought that this information came from FBI Agent Gallagher who, if recalled correctly was in charge of the Spectrographic analysis section of the lab, which was the section which examined the clothing of JFK.

Also, having spoken with Agent Gallagher in regards to the Oak Ridge testing of bullet fragments, I had no difficulty in speaking with him again in regards to the testing of the clothing of JFK.

Agent Gallagher informed me that he had absolutely no personal involvment with the testing of the coat; shirt; & tie of JFK, and he thought that either FBI Agents Heilman or Heiberger were probably the ones who did this.

He also stated that he had no part in informing Frazier of anything related to the testing of the clothing since he had nothing to do with that examination.*

*I re-called Frazier and brought this out, at which time Frazier stated that if it was not Gallagher, then he really did not know or recall who it was that informed him that the hole at the edge of the coat collar was where a comparison sample had been taken.

In location of FBI Agent Heilman, he informed me that he had nothing to do with this testing, and infomed me that he was frequently utilized as more or less the courier between FBI Headquarters and Oak Ridge, and that Gallagher and the other agent that helped Gallagher at Oak Ridge should recall this.

He also stated that at one point he stayed at Oak Ridge and assisted Gallagher in the mathmatical calculations on the NAA. (Pre-hand held computer days remember)

So, back to Gallagher, who then reported that yes, he recalled that Agent Heilman did as he had said, however he did not know that Heilman had nothing to do with the analysis of the clothing of JFK. He had just thought that since he was in Washington, D.C. part of the time that he may have had some part in this examination.

Thereafter, Gallagher informed me that the only person left would be FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

After narrowing the scope down to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger, I located and spoke with him.

And, the effort to locate him was well rewarded.

As a quick synopsis of our discussions:

1. He examined the hole in the president's coat which was located some 6 or so inches down from the collar.

2. He X-rayed the hole, which revealed metallic residue.

3. He removed a portion of the fabric around the edge of the hole and ran spectrographic analysis on the metallic residue.

4. The residue was copper.

5. He took no "comparison sample" from any location on the coat.*

*Agent Heiberger stated that since the metallic residue appeared on the X-ray only on the edges of fibers located at the entrance hole, and there was no indication of any such metallic residue anywhere else in the X-ray, and since copper is not normally an element of construction in a coat, there was hardly any use in taking any "comparison" sample.

Agent Heiberger also stated that when a comparison sample is taken for any reason, that it is taken as close to the actual area of damage as possible.

In the case of JFK's jacket, had such a comparison sample been taken, that it would have been taken directly adjacent to the existing damage/hole, and that the comparison sample removal area would have been circled in chalk for identification.

I thereafter asked Agent Heiberger if he knew anything in regards to the hole located at the edge of the coat collar of JFK's coat, to which he replied that he had no knowledge of it.

When I asked if this was where a comparison sample could have been taken, he replied with the same description of where and how a comparison sample is taken and then also interjected in that no comparison sample would have been taken up there where hair cream and even possibly makeup could affect the outcome of the testing.

Therein, you have, as relayed to me directly from the only FBI Agent known to examine the clothing of JFK, what is known as regards the "comparison sample" which reportedly created a hole throught the jacket and liner, and is located at the edge of the coat collar of the coat worn by JFK.

However, there is, as they say, much, much, more.

Since we were on the topic of the clothing of JFK, I decided that I may as well ask as many questions related to this topic as I could.

I therefore asked Agent Heibeger about examination of the shirt worn by JFK.

To this, Agent Heiberger responded that he had never seen and had nothing to do with examination of the shirt. But, since the coat pretty well proved that a copper jacketed bullet had passed through it, examination of the shirt would not have been of any great importance.

With this, I discussed the slit in the shirt at the vicinity of the button.

Again, Agent Heiberger stated that he knew nothing of this, and that he would not have as he did not examine the shirt, and that perhaps one of the other agents had done this examination.

Thereafter, we discussed the "nick" on the tie.

To this, Agent Heiberger stated that he was not certain of what I was talking about.

I again referenced the "nick" on the tie, to which he stated that there was no "nick".

Agent Heiberger stated that the tie contained a small abraised area, but that none of the tie fabric was gone.

That he had X-rayed the tie in this abrasion location and that the X-ray had revealed small metallic residue embedded in the fabric of the tie at the area of abrasion.

Thereafter, he stated that I must be confusing the "nick" with an area of fabric removal in which one of the other FBI Agents from the lab cut and removed a piece of the fabric to examine and determine the nature of the metallic residue.

With this information, I returned to Gallagher, Heilman, and there was one other Agent who was with Gallagher at Oak Ridge (can not recall his name).

All repeated that they had absolutely nothing to do with any examination of the clothing of JFK and that if Henry Heiberger did not do it, then it was not done.

Back to FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.

Agent Heiberber informed me that he had absolutely no idea as to what may or may not have been done after his initial testing of the clothing as stated. He also stated that an FBI Lab Test Report was completed for each and every test on each and every item of evidence. That these lab test reports should be available and that they would demonstrate exactly what he had said, each item that was tested, and the exact tests which he conducted on the items.

Thereafter, I asked why he (Agent Heiberger) had not been called to testify before the Warren Commission, and this is when the story of the "Oswald was here" written in chalk was brought out.

All that he knew was that the FBI received an "anonymous" call which reported having observed "Oswald was here" written on an abandoned railroad boxcar, in Georgia.

He, (Agent Heiberger) was dispatched to Georgia to investigate this.

Upon arriving, he was shown the crime scene and photo's were taken.

Thereafter, he took scrapings of the chalk from the grafitti.

Upon returning to the Washington, DC Lab, Agent Heiberger was directed to run tests to determine who made the chalk.

His EXACT words to me on this were:

"I don't know what the hell that was all about. That was the biggest waste of my time. I eventually found out who made the chalk but it proved nothing, and we all knew that Oswald was dead and buried".

You be the judge of "What the hell that was all about"!

Tom

P.S. For anyone who may not be aware of the fact, all statements claim that there was no metallic residue found in/on the tie of JFK.

This statement appears to have originated in a letter which was written by J. Edgar Hoover in which he states that examination of the coat worn by JFK revealed copper around the edge of the entry hole, however, no copper was found on examination of the tie.

One should note the wording of the letter of JEH.

AARB Testimony:

DR. PERRY: And is it not a matter of record that there was also metal on the knot of the tie? Isn't that correct?

MR. GUNN: On the knot of the tie?

DR. PERRY: On the knot of the tie? There was injury to the tie and there was some gilding metal, which is bullet jacket metal, on the knot of the tie.

MR. GUNN: I don't know.

DR. PERRY: I think that's in the record.

NOPE!

Not in the record, however! Whoever told you that little tidbit of information had knowledge which no one else was in possession of, and it was not entirely correct.

Agent Heiberger stated that the tie contained a small abraised area, but that none of the tie fabric was gone.

That he had X-rayed the tie in this abrasion location and that the X-ray had revealed small metallic residue embedded in the fabric of the tie at the area of abrasion.

Thereafter, he stated that I must be confusing the "nick" with an area of fabric removal in which one of the other FBI Agents from the lab cut and removed a piece of the fabric to examine and determine the nature of the metallic residue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, had the metallic residue which was embedded into the tie and was found by FBI Lab Technician Henry Heiberger been either "guilded" or copper, then rest assured that we would have been made fully aware of this fact as it would have been one of those items which supported the SBT theory.

However:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I just hate "hearsay" testimony.

Especially when it is in total contradiction to what the person who physically examined the evidence has to say on the subject, as well as what others such as Dr. Perry have been "told" by someone.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who asked!

1. A NORMAL bullet entrance DOES NOT normally remove frabric from the entry point, and is in fact only marginally noticeable.

2. The lower hole was "punched" out in an oval shape due to the manner (attitude) in which CE399 struck.

3. The upper penetration did not remove fabric due to being the normal "nose-first" striking of the medium-high velocity bullet.

4. The lower hole is an almost "through and through" due to the coat and liner being in an almost vertical attitude, as well as being flattened almost directly against the back of JFK at the moment of impact.

5. The upper (coat collar) hole is an angular penetration through the coat, as well as the inner liner, however, the two holes do not come into direct alignment (with coat in normal position) due to the manner/attitude at which the coat collar was in at the time of impact.

The "angular/oblique" nature of the penetration through the coat and liner of the upper hole is due to the manner in which the coat collar was riding at the time of impact of the third/last/final shot down in front of James Altgens position, when JFK was doubled over forward, with the back of his neck in an almost horizontal position and his head rolled slightly backwards at the neck.

The bullet penetrated on an oblique angle through the coat collar, struck JFK in the upper neck area at the edge of the hairline, tunneled through the soft flesh at the base of the neck, and thereafter struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull.

That is how, a bullet striking at the edge of the hairline can ultimate create skull damage to the EOP region.

Additionally, the "oblique" angle of attack (entry) is clearly defined by the elongated nature of the EOP bullet entry through the skull of JFK.

Hope that either answered your question, or at least pointed in the correct direction.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z343.jpg

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing,

Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

For those who have not followed the "ramblings", Station 4+95/4+96 happens to be some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact, as well as also being directly in front of James Altgens position.

And of course:

1. The WC decided that there was no need to show us frames of the Z-film past the Z334 point, which happens to also be prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film.

2. The WC attempted to complete their investigation without calling James Altgens to testify, and did so only when a newspaper article came out.

At that time, the Commission had completed their Investigation and had in fact turned in their "DRAFT" report, when the newspaper article appeared in which it was discussed that they had not even bothered to take the testimony of such a key witness as James Altgens, who had also taken key photographs during the assassination.

3. That the WC was fully aware of the importance of the Altgens testimony is quite evident in that during the WC Re-Enactment of the assassination, they utilized the Altgens Z255 photo to create their own "Re-Enactment" photo.

However, the re-enactment photo is completely false as any idiot who compares the original Altgens photo with the WC re-enactment photo can easily see that these photo's were not taken from the same location on Elm St.

4. In addition to this, when the WC did finally call James Altgens, by some strange manner, the location of James Altgens ended up being located at a position in which he was between the Mary Moorman/Jean Hill position and the TSDB.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0487a.htm

Now! Anyone who has taken any time to actually locate the true position of James Altgens, will find that he was standing alongside the curb of Elm St, just prior to the second yellow curb mark, (JFK was shot just after he passed the first yellow curb mark at the Moorman/Hill location), and Altgens was at a point which although not directly across from the steps/stairway on which Emmett Hudson was standing, was nevertheless across the street and only a short distance from being directly across from these steps.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about halfway between the tripple underpass and Houston, where the steps are - somewhere near about halfway.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there

It shoud be noted that Mr. Hudson clearly observed and absolutely described the impact of the SECOND shot (Z313) to the head of JFK, just as did SS Agent Glen Bennett as well as numerous other witnesses.

It should also be noted that Mr. Hudson also "let the cat out of the bag" in regards to James Altgens position as well.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see a man with a movie picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly!:

TESTIMONY OF EMMET J. HUDSON

The Testimony of Emmet J. Hudson was taken at 10:40 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Eray Streets, Dalla, Tex, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Testimony Of James W. Altgens

The testimony of James W. Altgens was taken at 12:45 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the absolutely critical testimony of witnesses such as Emmett Hudson; James Altgens: as well as several others, was not taken until such time as the WC had completed their investigation and had in fact turned in the "DRAFT" report?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who asked!

1. A NORMAL bullet entrance DOES NOT normally remove frabric from the entry point, and is in fact only marginally noticeable.

2. The lower hole was "punched" out in an oval shape due to the manner (attitude) in which CE399 struck.

3. The upper penetration did not remove fabric due to being the normal "nose-first" striking of the medium-high velocity bullet.

4. The lower hole is an almost "through and through" due to the coat and liner being in an almost vertical attitude, as well as being flattened almost directly against the back of JFK at the moment of impact.

5. The upper (coat collar) hole is an angular penetration through the coat, as well as the inner liner, however, the two holes do not come into direct alignment (with coat in normal position) due to the manner/attitude at which the coat collar was in at the time of impact.

The "angular/oblique" nature of the penetration through the coat and liner of the upper hole is due to the manner in which the coat collar was riding at the time of impact of the third/last/final shot down in front of James Altgens position, when JFK was doubled over forward, with the back of his neck in an almost horizontal position and his head rolled slightly backwards at the neck.

The bullet penetrated on an oblique angle through the coat collar, struck JFK in the upper neck area at the edge of the hairline, tunneled through the soft flesh at the base of the neck, and thereafter struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull.

That is how, a bullet striking at the edge of the hairline can ultimate create skull damage to the EOP region.

Additionally, the "oblique" angle of attack (entry) is clearly defined by the elongated nature of the EOP bullet entry through the skull of JFK.

Hope that either answered your question, or at least pointed in the correct direction.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z343.jpg

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing,

Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

For those who have not followed the "ramblings", Station 4+95/4+96 happens to be some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact, as well as also being directly in front of James Altgens position.

And of course:

1. The WC decided that there was no need to show us frames of the Z-film past the Z334 point, which happens to also be prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film.

2. The WC attempted to complete their investigation without calling James Altgens to testify, and did so only when a newspaper article came out.

At that time, the Commission had completed their Investigation and had in fact turned in their "DRAFT" report, when the newspaper article appeared in which it was discussed that they had not even bothered to take the testimony of such a key witness as James Altgens, who had also taken key photographs during the assassination.

3. That the WC was fully aware of the importance of the Altgens testimony is quite evident in that during the WC Re-Enactment of the assassination, they utilized the Altgens Z255 photo to create their own "Re-Enactment" photo.

However, the re-enactment photo is completely false as any idiot who compares the original Altgens photo with the WC re-enactment photo can easily see that these photo's were not taken from the same location on Elm St.

4. In addition to this, when the WC did finally call James Altgens, by some strange manner, the location of James Altgens ended up being located at a position in which he was between the Mary Moorman/Jean Hill position and the TSDB.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0487a.htm

Now! Anyone who has taken any time to actually locate the true position of James Altgens, will find that he was standing alongside the curb of Elm St, just prior to the second yellow curb mark, (JFK was shot just after he passed the first yellow curb mark at the Moorman/Hill location), and Altgens was at a point which although not directly across from the steps/stairway on which Emmett Hudson was standing, was nevertheless across the street and only a short distance from being directly across from these steps.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about halfway between the tripple underpass and Houston, where the steps are - somewhere near about halfway.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there

It shoud be noted that Mr. Hudson clearly observed and absolutely described the impact of the SECOND shot (Z313) to the head of JFK, just as did SS Agent Glen Bennett as well as numerous other witnesses.

It should also be noted that Mr. Hudson also "let the cat out of the bag" in regards to James Altgens position as well.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see a man with a movie picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly!:

TESTIMONY OF EMMET J. HUDSON

The Testimony of Emmet J. Hudson was taken at 10:40 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Eray Streets, Dalla, Tex, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Testimony Of James W. Altgens

The testimony of James W. Altgens was taken at 12:45 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the absolutely critical testimony of witnesses such as Emmett Hudson; James Altgens: as well as several others, was not taken until such time as the WC had completed their investigation and had in fact turned in the "DRAFT" report?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0485entry120485

Post #10

In reference to the lower of the two holes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, does the one which you have described as the entry of the bullet go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes through both layers.

________________________________________________________________________________

___________________

In reference to the hole at the coat collar:

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"YES, SIR; IT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Henry Heiberger, there was "no" fabric missing from the tie at the time that he examined it.

All that existed was an "abraised" area with the fabric/threads torn/disturbed.

In event one will review that testimony (also hearsay) within the WC, they will find that the tie was admitted into evidence with the "nick"/fabric missing, with reportedly no metallic residue having been found in the area.

So!

How is it that the bullet/projectile reportedly left metallic residue (copper) on the coat, yet did not manage to leave any metallic residue anywhere else????

Heiberger clearly stated that the tie was x-rayed and that metallic residue was present, that there was no "nick", and fabric was not missing, and that I must be confusing the "nick" with where another member of the Lab had completed his testing after he was shipped to Georgia to evaluate "Oswald was Here" and find out who made the chalk in which this message was written.

And, as with his other statements, he also informed me to get the Lab Test Reports which he completed for each and every test and they would demonstrate the results of his X-ray testing of the damaged/abraised area of the tie.

Now!

Had the metallic residue stood any chance of being copper, then rest assured that we would have heard of it as it would be in total support of the SBT-----BS!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

There is no need to "re-hash" the spectrographic analysis of JFK's clothing, as it is presented here, and if one of that persuasion, it can also be found on John McAdams sight as well.

In event that anyone has any questions regarding what Henry Heiberger relayed to me in regards to his examination of JFK's clothing, speak now or:============

Forget about it!