Thomas H. Purvis

Some few concerned citizens are beginning to complain in regards to "cross-posting" between different forums. Would not want to get into any trouble by upsetting the mass, considering how "politically correct" I have always attempted to be. Who knows, may want to run for some kind of "office" some day! Tom I wouldn't want to go into combat with someone afraid of being politically incorrect because they might want to run for office someday. And Tom, would you know anything about Texas gun laws in 1963? Could you buy a weapon in a store in Texas without an identification? Thanks, BK And Tom, What is the title of the McAdams' Oswald in Mexico City thread, as I couldn't find it. BK http://groups.google...4db18cdf210852# And, Texas, not unlike many other parts of the country, exercised slightly different laws within different localities of the state. For the most part, one could purchase a "long" gun/aka rifle; hunting rifle; shotgun; without any form of identification even having to be provided. Some cities had ordnances in regards to requiring presentation of a "valid" ID for the purchase of handguns, whereas some areas/cities did not. Of course, what constituted a "valid" ID was certainly open for interpretation by those who were selling the firearm. Thanks Tom, So then, why would Oswald, a seasoned rabbit hunter and long gun shooter (See: Lee by Robert Oswald), order the pistol and rifle through the mails with a money order, alias, and sent to a Post Office box when he could have more easily and cheaper ($10) purchased the rifle right there in downtown Dallas with cash on the barrell and over the counter with no written records of the transactions (other than a sales recipet)? And why buy the scope, that he didn't need and most certainly didn't use? And thanks for the Mexico City thread link. BK And why buy the scope, that he didn't need and most certainly didn't use? Since I was not present, I have no way of verification as to whether or not the shooter actually utiilzed the scope on the weapon. However, it most certainly would appear that he did so for at least the first shot, and considering that there was almost six seconds of elapsed time from the first to the second shot/aka Z313, then he most assuredly had more than sufficient time to acquire his target with the scope for the second shot. Now, since it took FBI Agent Robert Frazier approximately 2.3 to 2.4 seconds to relatively accurately fire the weapon utilizing the scope, then is is most unlikely that the shooter utilized the scope for the third/last/final shot which occurred approximately 1.9 to 2.0 seconds after the impact at Z313. So, I have no doubts that the third shot fired (the one which also struck JFK in the head down directly in front of the location where James Altgens was standing/30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact), was in fact a "snap shot" in which the scope was not utilized. But, the "shooter" most likely almost missed his first shot for the exact same reason that he missed General Walker. Which is directly attributable to an inexperienced "scope shooter" who is shooting at close ranges and does not know know to compensate for the difference between (scope) line-of-sight and bullet line-of-flight at close range shooting with a scope. Since we frequently have another true "shooter" who visits this forum, perhaps his input on the subject matter would be worthwhile considering my firm stance on there being ONLY a single/lone assassin who was shooting. Nope! Not you there ole wannabee "Scout Sniper" from the mythological "Marathon Station" Sniper School. I was referencing the only one who has posted here who truly has the "sniper" credentials and no doubt also carried the USMC Skill Identifier for such qualification.

Considering the volume as well as extent to many of my old postings, you no doubt must have missed the one in which I indicated "Incoming, run for Cover". There exists,from multiple/reliable sources, that Klein's Sporting Goods was in fact at "CIA Front" for providing arms to various "revolutionary" groups. So, if one wants to send those, such as the CIA, RUNNING FOR COVER, then one would no doubt want to order a weapon from a "front" company, and then utilize some of the quality (WCC) ammo which the CIA no doubt had produced at one time for some of these weapons. Having not dug too deeply into the order of the pistol, it too appears to have come from a relatively "shady" front company. Along the same line, in event that I did not want to inciminate anyone in New Orleans, LA in the "Crime of the Century", then I would most probably move (whether directed to or not) to some other "Radical" city. But, not wanting to end up on someone's "watch list", and/or incriminate those within that city, it would be best to order the weapons from some firm who specializes in such activities and who required only a signed slip of paper in which I basically promised that I was in fact the name on the order form. Note: For those who are unaware, the FBI/JEH was pushing hard for legislation to end such interstate sale of weapons with absolutely no proof as to who was actually ordering and receiving the weapon. And, Klein's was one of those firms that was on the FBI "watch list" as a result of their complete lack of verification of who was ordering and paying for the weapons. Hope that you were not of the opinion that the FBI/JEH was so competent that they could just immediately find who LHO ordered the weapon from, as well as believing all of that BS about how the Postal Inspector had nothing better to do than go out and find American Rifleman Magazine in order to aide. You can bet your ole "sweet bippy" that the Dallas Postal Inspector knew full well that LHO had received a rifle, which was shipped from Kleins, and in all probability, the package was opened and the serial number of the received weapon actually recorded. All of which, when fully understood, explains much about the false address which LHO shipped another "paper bag" too. In that regards, the Postal Inspector has persons looking for LHO at an address which does not exist, while LHO "hides" under an alias name in a rooming house which even his wife and/or Ruth Paine do not know where he is actually residing. Kind of looks like a "plan" of some kind, does it not? P.S. In event that one takes one-half (either the stock or the operational part of the weapon) to work one day in a paper bag, exactly how long does the paper bag have to be? Then, what functional purpose could the paper bag serve? And, exactly how long would a second paper bag have to be in order to transport the other half of the weapon to the TSDB? Think on that one John Dolva.

Some few concerned citizens are beginning to complain in regards to "cross-posting" between different forums. Would not want to get into any trouble by upsetting the mass, considering how "politically correct" I have always attempted to be. Who knows, may want to run for some kind of "office" some day! Tom I wouldn't want to go into combat with someone afraid of being politically incorrect because they might want to run for office someday. And Tom, would you know anything about Texas gun laws in 1963? Could you buy a weapon in a store in Texas without an identification? Thanks, BK And Tom, What is the title of the McAdams' Oswald in Mexico City thread, as I couldn't find it. BK http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f24db18cdf210852# And, Texas, not unlike many other parts of the country, exercised slightly different laws within different localities of the state. For the most part, one could purchase a "long" gun/aka rifle; hunting rifle; shotgun; without any form of identification even having to be provided. Some cities had ordnances in regards to requiring presentation of a "valid" ID for the purchase of handguns, whereas some areas/cities did not. Of course, what constituted a "valid" ID was certainly open for interpretation by those who were selling the firearm.

Did you mean my running for some type of office?

Some few concerned citizens are beginning to complain in regards to "cross-posting" between different forums. Would not want to get into any trouble by upsetting the mass, considering how "politically correct" I have always attempted to be. Who knows, may want to run for some kind of "office" some day! Tom

For those who are not obsessed with chasing mythological multiple assassins, they may wish to read the new posting on the McAdams (alt.assassination.jfk) site in regards to LHO's Mexico City trip.

Chris; The illogical becomes quite logical when one recognizes that the SECOND SHOT/aka Z313 as well as the THIRD SHOT/aka directly in front of James Altgens location, each struck JFK in the head. And, since I am quite obviously neither smarter than nor more qualified than were the SS and the FBI (assassination re-enactments & survey plats dated 12/5/63 & 2/7/64), there is also nothing which is of any degree of difficulty in this. Other than all that "Specter & Company" went through to in manipulation of the facts; evidence; and witnesses, in order to come up with the BS theory of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". "There is no Magic! However, Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear" Tom Purvis GUESSING GAME: 1. What witness claimed to have seen JFK's head explode and he then turned his head to look towards the sixth floor window of the TSDB just in time to observe the third/last shot being fired? 2. What witness was riding a motorcycle directly to the right rear of JFK and is of record as having stated that the President's head exploded with the second shot? (P.S. This witness too was not called to testify before the WC) "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"-----------Did not miss!

Chris; The illogical becomes quite logical when one recognizes that the SECOND SHOT/aka Z313 as well as the THIRD SHOT/aka directly in front of James Altgens location, each struck JFK in the head. And, since I am quite obviously neither smarter than nor more qualified than were the SS and the FBI (assassination re-enactments & survey plats dated 12/5/63 & 2/7/64), there is also nothing which is of any degree of difficulty in this. Other than all that "Specter & Company" went through to in manipulation of the facts; evidence; and witnesses, in order to come up with the BS theory of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". "There is no Magic! However, Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear" Tom Purvis

Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK So if I tell you 2+2=4 and Oswald was the killer, then 2+2=4 is no longer true?Cant beat the CT logic lol You can tell me whatever you want but I'm not going to believe it if you insist on Oswald being the Shooter. And you keep insisting on bringing up CT bullxxxx. Why do you have to mention CTs in every post? I hate Conspiracy Theorists more than you, especially those who claim the Mafia did it. But now I am beginning to dislike those who claim to be Special Expert Witnesses, which you claim to be in ballistics, who go out of their area of expertise and try to pin the tail on the wrong donkey. No, ordering the rifle from a mail order house with an alias and having it delivered to a po box that no po employee remembers handling and the receipt record having been destroyed, when you can buy the same rifle with no id at any department store in Dallas, does not equal 4. It makes no sense at all, except to create a false trail. You want to be a ballistics expert then don't speculate on who is pulling the trigger. Leave the motive to other more qualified experts. BK Bill, Care to show me where I ever claimed to be a "special expert witness"? Can you CT'ers ever get anything right? Mike; Send me your mailing address and I will send to you the forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical facts related to the first shot/aka CE399. Tom Purvis 109 Radcliff Drive Lucedale, MS 39452 P.S. For Gary Mack. Same goes for you/the Sixth Floor Museum as well.

Actually, I have only two remaining (intact) WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds, and have no intention of shooting either one. As difficult as it was to part with (shoot) a portion of those found, if one is going to do "comparative testing", then one should not attempt to do so with any of the new NORMA ammo. However, the actual Italian rounds are quite similiar in structure to the WCC round, and can be easily utilized to determine if (which it does) a copper-jacketed Carcano bullet actually loses stability and begins to tumble in flight after having been fired through a 1-inch thick oak limb.

John, This is something I would have to examine specific to that type of rifle and that type of round. There is nothing that can be done without actually firing that rifle with that ammo. You could and would get a variance even between rifles of the same type and manufacture. I would only add that given the length of the bullet and its sectional density it would stabilize very very quickly. I will see what I can find on this from an information stand point, but I believe what we will find is nothing that would change the imapcts at the ranges in question. Salute! Mike The assassination weapon WAS NOT a "cutdown" weapon! It was a standard length, Model 91/38 Short Rifle. The "Model 38" Short Rifle was introduced in 1938 in the new 7.35mm cartridge size which the Italian Government had intentions of converting to. With entry into WWII, the decision was made to not completely change over to the 7.35mm cartridge size as it constituted a massive undertaking of weapons manufacture as well as loss of the warstocks of the 6.5mm cartridge as well as current inventory of 6.5mm weapons. Therefore, by 1940, all production of 7.35mm weapons had ceased and the Short Rifle was thereafter produced in the 6.5mm version. ERGO: Model 91/38, with the prefix "91" standing for the year in which the 6.5mm Carcano (1891) was first accepted as the weapon of the Italian Military. Throughout the war as well as later history of these weapons, numerous Model 38 7.35mm Carcano Short Rifles have been converted to the standard 6.5mm version weapon, which merely constitutes having a barrell change. The "cut-down's" were old antiquated Model 91 Long Rifles (Rifles) which were cut down and made into 36-inch length Carbines which were referred to as the Model 91/24, as this was the year in which this work began. Due to the "progressive gain" twist in the long rifles, the removal of some 8+ inches of the forward section of the barrel created a weapon in which accuarate shooting was virtually impossible. With all that stated, the Model 91/38 Short Rifle (6.5mm version), and specifically the assassination weapon recovered, "bench tested" to an accuracy which compared with the US issue M-14 rifle. Which, happens to be the basis today of many of our standard issue Sniper rifles. As with other things John, this too was posted and explained long, long ago.

Take a good look at CE840 and you will find that portion of the "toothpaste" which was squeezed out of the tube and subsequently sheared from the base of the bullet as a result of impact with the right transvese process of the C7 vertebrae. Thereafter, to exit through the throat, creating a small lateral tear in the trachea as it passed through, prior to exiting in the anterior throat and creating the extremely small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior throat which Dr. Perry observed and through which wound he made the tracheotomy incision. The "cone-shaped"/"flat-based" fragment of CE840 was found in the left rear floor (where Jackie placed her feet). It weighed 0.9 grains and FBI Agent Robert Frazier identified it as "POSS C1"/aka Possibly from CE399, prior to FBI Supervisor William Sullivan having removed it and the two other fragments of CE840 from the FBI Ballistics Laboratory. There, my friend, is 0.9 grain of the missing weight to CE399, and, when coupled with the approximately 0.67 grains of weight loss to CE399 from merely having been fired, we now have slightly in excess of 160.0 grains of CE399 account for. (160.17 grains actually), which does not include the small metallic residue which has been observed in the X-rays and which fragments/residue is located within the neck of JFK at the approximate location of the fracture to the right transverse process of the damaged vertebrae. Tom PS. If you run out of anything better to do, shoot a WCC Carcano bullet through a 1-inch thick tree limb. Thereafter, determine at approximately what distance the bullet begins to tumble in flight as a result of loss of stability, and then also do a "comparative analysis" of the test bullet with the anomailies which CE399 possesses. Might suprise you what you will find. P.P.S. The Warren Commission did not cut the limbs out of the top of the live oak tree located directly in front of the TSDB, on May 25, 1963 (the day after their assassination survey & re-enactment), because they just had nothing better to do that day. Sir, Yes sir I would be glad to. The 6.5mm Carcano round is a copper jacketed bullet. The reason these are jacketed at all, is because at velocities over 1100fps the lead begins to heat and deform. This can cause serious trajectory issues. However. When these projectiles are in flight and hit a target, it is not uncommon to lose some lead from the tail of the projectile. It is common given two facts. One the lead is very soft and mailable, so if the jacket deforms at all it squeezes the soft lead out of the tail. Second, I have seen examples of projectiles that are non jacketed on the bottom, and ones that are jacketed on the bottom. If this projectile had a copper jacket on the bottom as well it would still not necessarily preclude the escape of lead out of the bottom. It seems at one time someone told me that they were not jacketed on the bottom, but I have been out of the game for a couple years and do not recall. I hope this has helped and if there is anything I can do I remain At your service, Mike Mike: Too bad you missed the "photo" works of long ago. The WCC 6.5mm Carcano round is constructed with the copper jacket partially covering the lead core at the bullet base. The copper jacket is "crimped" over/around the base to a width of approximately 1mm for the entire circumference of the base of the bullet. This leaves a 4.5mm width/diameter, virtually perfect circle of the lead core exposed at the base of the bullet. Tom Yes Sir and this is the area in cause and effect for the toothpaste to be squeezed from the tube! I have a few rounds of this era 6.5 Carcano ammo, but have not disassembled any, perhaps I should take just one of them apart for demonstration purposes. Hope you have been well my friend! Mike

Dave, Excellent post. I do not believe he is grabbing his throat at all, but other than that I agree 100%. I must have misunderstood your previous post, about the toxin, I thought you were subscribing to this madness. Best, Mike All this, in regards to a subject matter which was long ago "beat to death". In event that one will actually review the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, they will find that he clearly states that JFK is clutching/grasping/holding the lapel of his coat. Not that it does much good to repeat here (or for that matter anywhere else), as in a short time, someone else who does not wish to conduct research, will be again jumping onto this bandwagon and asking the same old antiquated questions. Does anyone actually do their "homework" prior to entering these forums?

Sir, Yes sir I would be glad to. The 6.5mm Carcano round is a copper jacketed bullet. The reason these are jacketed at all, is because at velocities over 1100fps the lead begins to heat and deform. This can cause serious trajectory issues. However. When these projectiles are in flight and hit a target, it is not uncommon to lose some lead from the tail of the projectile. It is common given two facts. One the lead is very soft and mailable, so if the jacket deforms at all it squeezes the soft lead out of the tail. Second, I have seen examples of projectiles that are non jacketed on the bottom, and ones that are jacketed on the bottom. If this projectile had a copper jacket on the bottom as well it would still not necessarily preclude the escape of lead out of the bottom. It seems at one time someone told me that they were not jacketed on the bottom, but I have been out of the game for a couple years and do not recall. I hope this has helped and if there is anything I can do I remain At your service, Mike Mike: Too bad you missed the "photo" works of long ago. The WCC 6.5mm Carcano round is constructed with the copper jacket partially covering the lead core at the bullet base. The copper jacket is "crimped" over/around the base to a width of approximately 1mm for the entire circumference of the base of the bullet. This leaves a 4.5mm width/diameter, virtually perfect circle of the lead core exposed at the base of the bullet. Tom

How would you then explain that just .79 seconds later the reaction from JFK is to raise his right hand, and begin his final wave? If the rest of the limo occupants are reacting to a gunshot why was he just calmly beginning to wave? Additionally Why do we have testimony from Willis who says the first shot hit the President, and his photo in relation to that shot at z202? Consider. Phil Willis We know that Phil Willis took his famous photo Willis 5, and that it relates to Zapruder frame 202. In the testimony of Mr. Willis we find some interesting statements. We find that his photo was snapped in reaction to the sound of the rifle shot. (7H493) We also find that this shot, according to Willis, “was hit” He tells us that this shot struck the President (7H493) “…and I got a picture of the President AS he was hit with the first shot” (7H493) So lets take a closer look at this photo and work a little timeline into effect. Phil Willis was 140 feet from the muzzle of the rifle at 202. It would have taken the sound .1238937 seconds to reach Willis, once that sound reached him we would have to add in a reaction time to snap the photo. According to my Shot timer tests, this time would be .235 seconds. By adding .235 and .1238937 seconds we arrive at the shutter being snapped .3588937 seconds after the shot was fired. .3588937 seconds divided by .054644808 gives us 6.56, say 6.6 z frames. This means the trigger was pulled at 195.4. Zapruder tells us that the President leaned towards his wife after the first shot (corroborating Willis). Since JFK is already reacting coming out from behind the sign, where Zapruder could not see him, then obviously Zapruder observed this before JFK went behind the sign. Also consider. Hugh Betzner who says he was "I was running trying to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise." Betzner was moving rapidly to take photos. Betzner took his Betzner 3 photo at 186, and in his testimony he tells us that He took this photo and started to wind his camera when he heard the first shot. (24H200) At 202 Betzner was 117 feet from the muzzle of the rifle. If the shot were fired at 195.4 the sound would reach Betzner .103539735 seconds later, or 1.9 Z frames, which puts the sound reaching Betzner at 197.3. If he took his previous photo at 186 then he heard the shot at 197.3 did he have enough time to take the 186 photo and begin to wind his camera? 197.3 subtract 186 leaves us with 11.3 Z frames. 11.3 times .054644808 is .617 seconds. I tested this out with a simple stop watch. I held it in front of my face like a camera, and hit the start button to simulate taking a photo, then I lowered it and hit the stop button. My times were as follows: .66, .50, .53, .47, .50, .72, .63, .63, .63, .66, for an average of .593 seconds. I stand convinced that Betzner could very well have taken the 186 photo and just begun to wind the film when the shot rang out. Far more evidence is to be had for a shot in the late 190's. I have much more but this should suffice. I would say that one can not base an entire theory on the turn of a head during a noisy motorcade. Mike! Kindly cease to confuse others with facts! Tom

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm. Pat, Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter. Best to you my friend, Mike Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter. Simple Answer: Yep! Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry. Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.

If it counts for anything! #1 is the bullet entrance hole, as confirmed by the HSCA questioning of the Autopsy Surgeons, as well as my personal conversations with Dr. Boswell. In fact, if one will review much of the HSCA Medical Panel works, they will find that they even reproduced "enlargement" photo's of this entry wound for continued study. Might want to "dig" into the "Abrasion Collar" subject matter related to this wound, as it will also provide an "essential element of information". Back Entry Wound: 4mm X 7mm in dimension with relatively clean-cut edges. (exactly identical to what is created with a "wadcutter" round. CE#399: Flat base deformed to 4mm X 7mm in dimension. "Punch-type" wound of entry through clothing worn by JFK, with considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound. (Which happens to be one of those things like the Northern Lights, in that a normal bullet entry does not carry fabric down into the wound of entry). The principal question remaining: "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"? As, one can rest assured that if one gives a fifth grader the back entry wound dimension and the deformed base to CE399 dimension, then he/she would easily be capable of determination as to which end of CE399 struck first. Tom P.S. Don't forget to check into that "abrasion collar", as it also will shed considerable light and knowledge on the subject matter.

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher ) It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man! (William G. McAdoo) FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, Neither did the U.S. Secret Service! and, Neither did the FBI! and (forwhatever it is (or is not) worth, neither did Tom Purvis and I am not positive he used the scope! One thing can be readily established. There was insufficient time between the Second Shot/aka Z313 and the Third Shot/aka 30-feet farther down the road, for full operation of the weapon and target acquisition utilizing the scope. If, and when, one comes to fully recognize the true shot sequence and exactly when the Third/Last/Final shot was fired and struck JFK. Think "Snapshot"! Tom, By god it is fantastic to see you again! I hope you have been well. While I am not sure we agree on the last shot, we do agree on much. I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment. There may be many things I am but ignorant is not one of them. You and I both know these shots were not difficult and that it is only the time restraint that they try to pack them into that makes it so. My analogy to the boy was simply based on the difficulty of the shots without time constraints. I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol. At any rate it sure is good to hear from you and if you are ever down Florida way, my door is always open! Best to you Sir, Mike I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment. Nope! Such rude, crude, and socially unacceptable comments are strictly reserved for those who continue to posit the difficulty of the shots. I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol. Normally, I refer to it as merely being "pellet gun ranges". However, I have at one time or another posted some of our local newspaper photo's of 9 to 10 year olds and their "first-kill" bucks. With of course, the appropriate commentary that virtually any of them could have also made the shots. Rest assured that it does my "old" heart good to actually see someone who knows what they are speaking of, back on this sight. Look around and you will also note that I once "dragged" Ayoob into the conversations, back when the "GREAT" Scout Sniper wannabe was local hero of ballistic information and purported shot difficulty. Tom

Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second? I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. Not if one of the shooters were in front. Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do. GO_SECURE monk Mr. Burnham, Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply. I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out. Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter. There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement. You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet. No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event. Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter. Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir. My best to you, Mike Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir. Mike! Do you also engage in expanded searches for a Unicorn and/or the Golden Fleece?

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher ) It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man! (William G. McAdoo) FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, Neither did the U.S. Secret Service! and, Neither did the FBI! and (forwhatever it is (or is not) worth, neither did Tom Purvis and I am not positive he used the scope! One thing can be readily established. There was insufficient time between the Second Shot/aka Z313 and the Third Shot/aka 30-feet farther down the road, for full operation of the weapon and target acquisition utilizing the scope. If, and when, one comes to fully recognize the true shot sequence and exactly when the Third/Last/Final shot was fired and struck JFK. Think "Snapshot"!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm Of course, one must also "love" anyone who is sufficiently smart enough to "hide-in-plain-sight", knowledge which effectively destroys the myth in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". And, so long as one is not expending cerebral function in chasing "mythological multiple assassins", one just may find something else of relevance within the WC documents.

Since no such "animal" of that nomenclature exists, then one just may be hoping for nothing in event they expect ALL to be given. The "essential" elements of information can only be derived when one has access to ALL information. Some of this information, as limited as it actually is, comes from the TIME/LIFE works of November 1963. Other critical information is derived from the three days of survey work (December 2, 3, & 4th) which culminated in the SS Survey assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat of 12/5/63. Other critical information is derived from the FBI Assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat, with limited survey work done, which was thereafter done on 2/7/64. Other critical information is derived from an understanding of the additional survey points (& survey notes) which are associated with the WC's assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat of May, 1964. Much of this knowledge thereafter provides various "keys" to an understanding of the survey points and elevations as shown on the later Drommer Survey Plat. And lastly, the handwritten (measurement) notes of Lyndal Shaneyfelt also happen to shed additional light/knowledge as to exactly what the FBI fully knew, when! Not to mention additional elements of information relative to "key" marker locations such as sidewalk/street curbing construction joints, etc. And lastly, even (if) when in possession of each of the above items, the capability of deriving answers from this knowledge is limited by the accuracy/inaccuracy of dealing with, at best, a survey plat on which the scale is 1" = 10 feet. Not to mention actually "disappearing/moving" non-permanently fixed items of Dealey Plaza. And, although most "non-permanent"/fixed items of Dealey Plaza could be re-placed based on the cumulative data contained within the survey notes, even this would contain a given error. Very little of the survey work was carried out into the "seconds" of accuracy, as well as some measurements having not even been carried to the "tenth" of a foot. Therefore, one could go to Dealey Plaza, and utilizing the existing information/data, still only replace certain items to within a foot-or so of accuracy. And, without utilization of the "EXACT"/same camera's utilized in much of the assassination photography, establishment of many of the alignments of items would contain the errors of photography as well. Nevertheless, it could still be accomplished. Just that it would require time/money/and complete access to all known and available data. Tom P.S. For "Parrothead"! The SS placement for impact of the SECOND SHOT/aka the Z312/313 impact, was actually less than one-foot in distance from that as determined by the WC. The actual street elevation difference for the two impact locations varies by only a few hundredths of a foot. And of course, the SS works of 12/5/63 and the FBI works of 2/7/64 maintained the exact same location for the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot as being some 30-feet farther down Elm St, directly in front of James Altgens location. Just as he stated in his deposition when he was finally called. I would suppose that possibly only "Mr. Parrothead" is of the misguided opinion that James Altgens was actually standing at some point between the TSDB and the location where Jean Hill/Mary Moorman were standing. Which happens to be where the WC managed to "move" him too. As Mr. Shaneyfelt could have told you, James Altgens was standing virtually exactly at the construction joint in the concrete curb & gutter, which construction joint happens to be exactly 5-feet from the leading edge of the SECOND yellow curb mark. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC14.htm http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1 And, as long ago mentioned and "marked". Even a "crack" in the asphalt of Elm St. can serve a purpose. Be it to assist in locating the position of an idividual or attempting to "hide" the location of an individual. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0047b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol5_0076b.htm Just gotta love anyone who can pull the wool over everyone's eyes so easily!

Since no such "animal" of that nomenclature exists, then one just may be hoping for nothing in event they expect ALL to be given. The "essential" elements of information can only be derived when one has access to ALL information. Some of this information, as limited as it actually is, comes from the TIME/LIFE works of November 1963. Other critical information is derived from the three days of survey work (December 2, 3, & 4th) which culminated in the SS Survey assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat of 12/5/63. Other critical information is derived from the FBI Assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat, with limited survey work done, which was thereafter done on 2/7/64. Other critical information is derived from an understanding of the additional survey points (& survey notes) which are associated with the WC's assassination re-enactment and Survey Plat of May, 1964. Much of this knowledge thereafter provides various "keys" to an understanding of the survey points and elevations as shown on the later Drommer Survey Plat. And lastly, the handwritten (measurement) notes of Lyndal Shaneyfelt also happen to shed additional light/knowledge as to exactly what the FBI fully knew, when! Not to mention additional elements of information relative to "key" marker locations such as sidewalk/street curbing construction joints, etc. And lastly, even (if) when in possession of each of the above items, the capability of deriving answers from this knowledge is limited by the accuracy/inaccuracy of dealing with, at best, a survey plat on which the scale is 1" = 10 feet. Not to mention actually "disappearing/moving" non-permanently fixed items of Dealey Plaza. And, although most "non-permanent"/fixed items of Dealey Plaza could be re-placed based on the cumulative data contained within the survey notes, even this would contain a given error. Very little of the survey work was carried out into the "seconds" of accuracy, as well as some measurements having not even been carried to the "tenth" of a foot. Therefore, one could go to Dealey Plaza, and utilizing the existing information/data, still only replace certain items to within a foot-or so of accuracy. And, without utilization of the "EXACT"/same camera's utilized in much of the assassination photography, establishment of many of the alignments of items would contain the errors of photography as well. Nevertheless, it could still be accomplished. Just that it would require time/money/and complete access to all known and available data. Tom P.S. For "Parrothead"! The SS placement for impact of the SECOND SHOT/aka the Z312/313 impact, was actually less than one-foot in distance from that as determined by the WC. The actual street elevation difference for the two impact locations varies by only a few hundredths of a foot. And of course, the SS works of 12/5/63 and the FBI works of 2/7/64 maintained the exact same location for the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot as being some 30-feet farther down Elm St, directly in front of James Altgens location. Just as he stated in his deposition when he was finally called. I would suppose that possibly only "Mr. Parrothead" is of the misguided opinion that James Altgens was actually standing at some point between the TSDB and the location where Jean Hill/Mary Moorman were standing. Which happens to be where the WC managed to "move" him too. As Mr. Shaneyfelt could have told you, James Altgens was standing virtually exactly at the construction joint in the concrete curb & gutter, which construction joint happens to be exactly 5-feet from the leading edge of the SECOND yellow curb mark.

Chris, It was 90-feet from centerline of the first lamp post to the going away side of the second lamp post (aka the one down in front of Zapruder's position). http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z125.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z272.jpg It was 55 feet from the corner of the concrete wall in the background, to the leading edge of the first skylight (of the second grouping of skylights/hole in wall) http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z265.jpg There were 9 skylights with a "beginning first to end of last" distance of 9.3 feet. Distance from corner of concrete wall to end of last skylight/hole in wall was 64.3 feet. In event that you plot the lamp post location, might want to extend a line from the Zapruder pedestal (elevation point at the bottom of the steps, through that street & curb elevation on the South curb of Elm St.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm Long ago, I posted this, and so informed that it is not the factual/true WC Survey Plat. Of those items referenced as being amiss from this was the "curb drain/inlet", which is in fact surveyed in and plotted on the true survey plats in my possession. I also long ago mentioned that on March 16, 1964, when the Autopsy Surgeons were called to testify, Mr. West was also called and asked to go get exact measurements relative to sign sizes/dimensions and physical locations relative to curbs and light posts. To include the sign and lamp post which was farther down Elm St. from Zapruder's position. Which, when combined with the curb drain and inlet into this drain, make for some pretty fair "alignment" items in event that one wishes to "backplot" their (or someone else's) position. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...um=38&pos=2 HMMMMMMMMMM? Sort of makes one wonder if deletion of the curb drain/inlet location from the "Purported" WC Survey Plat (CE882), would have anything to do with alignment of photographic images relative to these background items.