An "Epiphany"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Richard Avedon:

"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As with (most) all things, there is a reason!

And, as with many things, a "key" was provided.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In order to hopefully prevent cardiac arrest on the part of some, perhaps starting with a small epiphany would be best.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image0.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image4.htm

OK now, enough is enough!

First we are given portions of the Clark and HSCA testimonies which state that photo#44 is of the front of the head with the scalp reflected, and now we are given a copy of some 1966 inventory whch states that photo#44 are:

"color prints of the missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected"

It would appear that you (me/I) are intentionally going about attempting to further confuse persons such as Pat Speer.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Allright, enough!

Before we give Pat Speer a migrane, start to explain some of this.

One place (Clark & HSCA) states that the photo (#44) is of the front of the head with the scalp reflected, and that it shows the beveled bone of exit in the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the head.

Yet!

The photographic inventory sheet of 1966 states that the photo (#44) represents a missile wound in the posterior of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

You CANNOT have it both ways!----------------Can You?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image06.htm

[Thomas H. Purvis]

OK! But!

Photo#44 is a photograph of the front of the skull, with the scalp in the parietal/parietal-frontal of the skull reflect back, and the photograph also demonstrates "the internal aspects of the back of the skull".

Whew! Got that and it was not actually that difficult to even understand.

HOWEVER!

That still does not resolve the issue and conflict where the inventory states the photo shows the missile wound to the posterior (entry point) of the skull and the HSCA claims that the photo shows the missile wound to the anterior (exit point) of the skull.

So! Let's see you get out of that one!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image2.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image3.htm

Whoa Nellie!

Now you are truly beginning to give Pat Speer a headache.

Such claims that photo# 44 can "show that the point of exit of the missile was much larger than the point of entrance" as well as "show the location of the head wound, and verify the accuracy of the Warren Commission drawings (Exhibits 386 and 388):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0501a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

After all, photo#44 can not verify the location of the anterior/EOP entry wound.-------CAN IT?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

After all, photo#44 can not verify the location of the anterior/EOP entry wound.-------CAN IT?

Yeah, it can! Since it shows the entry wound at the interior location of the skull in the vicinity of the EOP.

Photo#44 is a close up of the top/front of the head, with the parietal/parietal-frontal lobes closest to the camera (in the foreground) and the internal table of the rear/occipital portion of the skull in the background.

Portions of the scalp in the frontal area of the head have been pulled down over the face, and a portion of the scalp from the parietal area has been reflected back to the left, slightly over the left hemisphere of the skull.

The photograph was taken AFTER removal of the brain, and constitutes one of those photographs which Dr. Finck had specific interest in obtaining in order to demonstrate the beveling to the tables of the bone in the skull.

The photograph was taken after the parietal/parietal-frontal bone fragment received from Dallas which contained the 2.5 cm circular area of beveling on the external table of the skull was "re-positioned" into that location from which it had been blown out by the exiting bullet/fragments.

In addition, the alignment of the photographs was such as to also show the EOP entry point into the skull in conjunction with the parietal'parietal-frontal exit.

A photograph which was INTENTIONALLY made in order to clearly demonstrate the entry point into the skull with the corresponding internal beveling, as well as the exit point from the skull with the corresponding external beveling.

Circle#1 represents the lower one-half of the skull bone in the occipital regions of the skull as well as the penetration damage to the scalp, to include an attempt to demonstrate the beveling to the skull bone on the internal surface of the skull.

Circle#2 represents the circular 2.5cm area in which a bullet/fragmement exited the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull.

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

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

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

An understanding of photo#44 is as essential as is the understanding of CE399.

Photo#44 proves ABSOLUTELY the EOP entry point as fully located and examined by the autopsy surgeons.

And, in so doing, completely eliminates the Z313 headshot impact as being able to have accounted for this wound of entry due to the position which JFK's head would have had to be in in order to receive this tangential would to the back of the scalp and skull.

Then of course, there is the added FACT that the bullet responsible for this edge of the hairline/EOP entry also completely penetrated the coat of JFK on an oblique angle with the point of entrance being just below the edge of the coat collar, and with this, one has the basic alignment which is required to know absollutely that this shot struck JFK when he was leaned well forward.

A position which did not occur until well after the Z313 impact.

P.S. The "Hint" was that I drew you an arrow to the "edge of the occipital bone".

Edited August 30, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Later on, all parties got together at the local bar and hatched a "bar bet" plan to intentionally make Pat Speer look bad by publishing photographs in "Reverse Image" photography and confusing him.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0065a.htm

Now! Assuming what is stated (excluding the "bar bet" portion) is actually true, the the primary question would be:

"Well, you low-life, snake-in-the grass, exactly how long have you known about the HSCA manipulations and kept it to yourself while many of the others of us have been allowed to make fools of ourself?"

Heh! Heh! Heh!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Question?

When in sufficient time the presented information is deemed to be the facts that it actually is, would that mean that I could possibly win the illustrious "Mary Ferrell" award and get to walk shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Bill Miller; Al Carrier; and other "greats" of the research community?

OH! Be still my heart!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Moved From EOP v. Cowlick

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry153904

REALITY: I was the first person to note that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down,

Too bad that you did not sufficiently know enough about it to recognize that it was also a "reverse image"

photograph.

and I am the only person of whom I am aware to test the orientation of this photo in multiple ways, all of which indicate this photo was taken from behind.

Too bad that you did not sufficiently know enough about it to recognize that it was also a "reverse image"

photograph.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Tom, find some doctors to debate me on this issue, so I can prove them wrong and close the case.

It has been my experience that those who are truly qualified in such areas are most unlikely to "debate" forensics with a "lay" person.

Especially when: You did not sufficiently know enough about it to recognize that it was also a "reverse image" photograph.

In Part 3 of my video series, and in chapter 14 of patspeer.com, however, I show how the doctors had NO PROBLEM saying this photo was of the back of the head in November,

Perhaps if you "flip" the flim on your video over and show it, you may actually learn something.

As far as your "reverse" theory, neither the Clark Panel nor HSCA FPP believed this photo was reversed and you know it. We're still waiting for you to explain who, when, and why, this photo was reversed.

Although it would apparantly require some modifications:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but one can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Modification: But one can quite apparantly fool Pat Speer anytime!

We're also waiting for you to explain the apparent bullet entrance, which in your orientation, is on the forehead

From the private emails received, it would appear that "we" mostly constitutes yourself and possibly some mouse which you have in your pocket.

However!

which in your orientation, is on the forehead

Since you continue to repeat this highly erroneous statement, it serves to indicate that no matter what one would post here, Pat Speer would not understand it.

Therefore, I see little purpose in continuation of attempting to explain anything who is of the apparant belief that photographs, as opposed to those who look at them, are stupid.

Considering that you are of the belief tht a "Reverse Image" photograph of the front of the head actually shows the rear of the head, then it too is fully understandable as to why a drawing which demonstrates a bullet exit in the top of the head would, to Pat Speer, appear to indicate a bullet exit in the forehead.

I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up.

One nice thing about the "Education Forum". There are in fact some relatively well educated persons who visit here.

Perhaps they got that way by having "smart photographs"! I certainly do not know.

However, back in the ole "Aerial Imagery Interpretation" classes, we were taught that as a general rule, the photograph was only as "smart" or as "stupid" as the person who was attempting to decipher and interpret the image on the photograph.

Now, and in that regards! They did make a considerable number of us appear relatively stupid when they would "slip in" one of those Reverse Image photographs for interpretation.

Lastly, in the event that anyone (other than Pat Speer & "you know who") has any further questions in regards to what the late/great "Mystery Photograph" actually represents, then I will be glad to attempt to provide what limited information I have.

However, for the most part, you are now in possession of the same knowledge that I have on the subject matter.

And, not unlike most other information, might I recommend that you NOT openly and randomly accept it.

Rather, take it to a qualified pathologist; forensic pathologist; and/or surgeon who specializes in the head/brain, and get your answers.

Stupid and completely unresearched and incorrect answers are freely obtained all over the internet as well as on this forum.

Educated and correct answers are usually obtained from those professionals in the fields of forensics; pathology; ballistics; etc.

Likewise, although I again recently posted those drawings which demonstrate how a bullet exiting the skull is responsible for the metallic residue indication on the interior table of the skull of JFK, in event that anyone (other than Pat Speer & "you know who") desires to see it one last time, I have not yet erased it from the computer.

Mike!

You out there? Did you get them?

It is a "great mystery" as to exactly why anyone would believe that the "Mystery Photograph" is a "mystery"!

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

(Tom Purvis)

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

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up.

(Pat Speer)

Although there can be little doubt, that at minimum, at least two members of this forum are lacking in the ability to recognize right from left.

Was there anyone else who can not?

Now! Let's see if we can figure this great enigma out!

In the event that I am looking at the photograph from "above and in front", and I am looking down into the "cranial cavity with brain removed" and, were I to assume that the photograph was printed in a manner which thusly depicted the left hemisphere of JFK's head having been blown away, should I possibly suspect something?

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

In the event that I actually researched the subject matter and found that it was in fact the right hemisphere of JFK's head; skull; and brain that were torn apart by the entering & exiting bullet(s), should I suspect something of a photograph which would depict that it was the left hemisphere of the skull that was damaged?

Do I have the knowledge and capabililty to determine left from right in a photograph.

In event that I so inform you that I wear my watch on my left wrist, yet you see a photograph with the watch on the right wrist, am I a xxxx, or perhaps is your interpretation of the photograph incorrect and it is a "Reverse Image" photograh?

(check the shirt buttons, etc; to find out).

Or, one can always go to WWW.PATSPEER.WAG.COM and spin the wheel of knowledge.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Commander HUMES - As I mentioned previously, at one angle of this largest pyramidal shaped fragments of bone which came as a separate specimen, we had the portion of the perimeter of a roughly what we would judge to have been a roughly circular wound of exit. Judging from that portion of the perimeter which was available to us, we would have judged the diameter of that wound to be between 2.5 and 3 cm.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

As this missile penetrated the scalp, it then came upon a very firm substance, the hard skull, and I believe that this track depicted by the dotted lines on Exhibit 388 was a portion of that missile which was dislodged as it made its defect in the skull. And that--that another portion, and, as I say, presumably, by the size of the defect, a more major portion made its exit through the right lateral side of the skull.

Mr. McCLOY - Is this piece of pyramidal bone that was brought in to you subsequently as I understand it--

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - Was that part of the outer table or the inner table?

Commander HUMES - It was both tables, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - Both tables?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; had it only been one it might have been difficult to ascertain whether it was.

Mr. McCLOY - Shelving or not?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

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

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present when the three pieces of scalp were reconstructed to form the major portion of the absent part of President Kennedy's skull which Doctor Humes described?

Colonel FINCK - I was present when several portions of bone were brought.

Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe, if anything, as to a reconstructed hole from those three portions of skull? Colonel FINCK - May I refer to my scheme?

Mr. SPECTER - Please do.

Colonel FINCK - For the sake of demonstration.

Mr. SPECTER - Fine.

Colonel FINCK - At the level of the wound of exit, E, in my scheme, Commission Exhibit No. 400, when viewed from the inside of the skull, there was no crater, whereas when the wound is seen from the outside of the skull, there was beveling, cratering, or coning--this is possible to determine an exit even if only a portion of the bone is submitted, for the reason that if there was enough bone submitted, there is enough curvature to identify the inside and outside of the skull. Therefore the fragment, to give you an example, this portion at the level of the wound of exit can be oriented, and the outer surface of the skull and the inner surface of the skull may be identified due to the curvature.

And then you look at the direction of the beveling and you do see the beveling when looking from the outside and you can identify an exit wound. And that is what I did, and now I am referring to the actual case in discussion, Commission Exhibit 388.

Mr. SPECTER - That is B?

Colonel FINCK - Letter B. We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0038b.htm

Dr. WECHT. Pierre, on the pieces of bone that were brought to you that evening from Dallas or on any of the remaining portions of fragmented bones in the President' s skull, cerebellum essentially, do you recall seeing anything that looked like or suggested a circular or a semi-circular or any portion of a circle, circular type wound that would be consistent with or suggestive of a gunshot wound in the right parietal region or in any of the bone fragments that were sent to you from Dallas that evening?

Dr. FINCK. From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question.

Dr. WECHT. Your answer then is that you did see some kind of a circular area or defect?

Dr. FINCK. A portion of the crater, I would say. This is the outside of the skull of the cadaver.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: Dr. Finck, in addition to what you have described as a bullet hole of entrance, the location of which you have indicated on my head, would you describe any other damage which you might have found to the skull of the late President Kennedy?

A: In addition to the wound of entry I have discussed in the back of the head, there was a very large wound, irregular, star-shaped, what we call stellate, s-t-e-l-l-a-t-e, approximately five inches in diameter. It was 13 centimeters in diameter, which is approximately five inches and one-eighth. During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling I described to you. First identified the outer aspect of the specimen and the inner aspect, I-n-n-e-r, of the specimen to orient the specimen in relation to the wound. After having oriented the specimen as far as the outer and inner surfaces are concerned, I saw this crater when the specimen was viewed from outside which identifies a portion of the wound of exit.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image07.htm

Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064b.htm

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Q. Did you make any incisions at any place before taking the photographs?

A. Well, depending on which photographs you're talking about. We didn't photograph the wound in the occiput until the brain was removed, you know. Sure, we had to make an incision to remove the brain and so forth, but no, generally speaking, no, we didn't make any incisions at all.

Q. Didn't you see some of the photographs during the time that you met with the HSCA panel?

A. Well, I guess they had some of them there. That was kind of a confused affair, and I--did I have the photographs in my hands to look at? No. They had some blow-ups that they were trying to use to demonstrate to the panel, I guess, and I found them very difficult to interpret, to be perfectly candid with you. I had problems with them.

Q. Other than that series of photographs, were the remainder of the photographs all taken at the beginning of the autopsy, do you recall?

A. Virtually all of them were, yeah.

Q. Do you remember--

A. There's only basically two that weren't. One was the inside of the occipital region, which we interpreted as the wound of entrance,

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image0.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image4.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image3.htm

I would suppose that some have failed to recognize that any photograh which can demonstrate that one hole is different in size than another separate hole, must therefore include as a part of the potograph, BOTH HOLES!

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

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.