Antti Hynonen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OH06xqX2g...feature=related

Acquila Clemmons interview, pretty convincing.

Ok, thanks Tom.

I'll have to look at this a bit more.

Tom Purvis:

Antti;

This is merely a use of the HSCA photo (resembling JFK) to demonstrate the downward angle of penetration.

At the time/point of impact, JFK was leaned to his left towards Jackie, with his head bent forward/chin down towards chest, and face rolled slight to the right with the right side of his face facing slightly upwards.

Thusly, the right rear of his head where the bullet struck in the hairline , was in an almost horizontal position and directly exposed to the line-of-sight/line-of-flight of the bullet.

Because JFK's head/face was rolled somewhat to the right and chin down as he leaned leftwards, the bullet pathway was a downward, as well as a slightly right to left passage through the head.

If you wish a good perspective, then sit on the edge of the bed with feet on floor, bend head forward to chin about on chest, rotate head to look in direction of right shoulder, and then lean slightly forward and approximately 45+degrees to the left.

Tom,

Ok, thanks.

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't see this rather steep angle in the Zapruder film. I just can't see the neck in a virtually horizontal level with the street. The way I have tried this position and looked at Zapruder, I just keep seeing a discrepancy of some 20 degrees with what you say and with what is on film, as to me it looks like on the film that the head still semi-erect.

Thomas H. Purvis:

However, the great majority of witness testimony establishes that three shots were fired.

the great majority of testimony establishes the shot sequence as: bang,-------------------bang,----bang!

I have three bullets striking JFK

1. At approximately Z2-4/206. BANG!

2. Some 5.8 to 5.9 seconds later, a second shot strikes JFK in the cowlick of the skull at Z313.

3. Some 1.8 to 1.9 seconds later, a third and final shot strikes JFK in the EOP region of the skull, directly in front of James Altgens position, exits the head of JFK and strikes JBC in the right rear shoulder.

So! Why would I waste time looking for something which never existed to begin with?

Sort of like looking for mythololgical multiple assassins; body snatching wound alteration specialists; unicorns; the golden fleece; and rabbits that wear big tall funny hats.

As you may have deriived by now, I have a realtive decent understanding of the evidence, and therefore do not have to dream up non-existent beings, etc; in order to answer what are in reality quite simple questions to the events of the assassination.

Three Shots!

Three Hits!

And a big fat WC Lie about "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

Which never ceases to amaze me that anyone actually believed!

Tom,

How can you support a third (successful) shot that occurs in less than 2 seconds from the previous one?

The entire single shooter theory lies on the weapon having been a Carcano, which is as we all know a bolt action rifle.

With this in mind, that is, the time needed to "recycle" the weapon + the time needed to obtain an accurate aim again, a theorized time of less than 2 seconds, is very very short. On top of this, the third shot must have been by far the hardest shot as at this time the target was the farthest away and the target was partially slumped in the back seat. (Minimal area of head visible to the shooter at this point).

Considering these, I'd say a successful third headshot with these "facts" in mind is virtually impossible.

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 04:28 AM

Summary:

1. Tangential wound of the scalp.

2. Extremely elongated entry wound (15mm).

3. Tunnel through the soft tissue of the neck.

4. Skull entry at a higher point than the scalp entry.

OH! This is so difficult, is it not?

P.S. Did I forget to mention that the bullet also went through the slightly raised coat collar?

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)

Tom, When was Kennedy's head in this type of position?

Steve Thomas Posted Yesterday, 02:58 PM

QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Mar 14 2008, 05:22 PM)

I'm going to take this one a little out of order, but my eyebrows went up a little when I saw this.

This is from Group 45 pdf. 2127.

Reduced: 80% of original size [ 800 x 390 ] - Click to view full image

the rest of the file would read: Troy West, 5314 Colonial St., Gladys Yoakum, 2234 Carnes.

This is the same Emmett Joseph Hudson who testified before the WC. He wasn't asked if he know LHO.

Steve Thomas

Carl Edward Jones employee at TSBD

William Martin Jurek Oswald's ladlord on Ellsbeth

Mack Osborne served with LHO in the Marines

Frank Henry Ray Russian speaking resident of Dallas

Pauline Sanders TSBD clerk

Robert Stovall Preseident, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall

Mahlon Tobias Manager of Ellsbeth St. Apt's

Troy West TSBD employee

Gladys Yoakum Typing instructor

Joan Graef Director of Photographic Dep't JCS

Leonard Hutchison Irving grocer, Owner of Hutch's

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Don't you find it unusual that Robert L. Stovall and John (SIC) Graef are both listed as residing at 522, Browder Street, Dallas? Or is there some sensible explanation?

I thought the only important one was 11/22/63, but let me guess Tim, Specter presented the SBT to the WC?

Numerous off-topic posts deleted off of this thread by me today at 8 am Forum time.

Tim Gratz Posted Yesterday, 07:08 PM

I would appreciate if anyone regardless of his or her opinion can suggest a shooting scenario that is consistent with the HSCA acoustics study showing the first two shots from the rear, the third from the knoll, and the fourth from the rear.

If you accept Tague's testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit (i.e. he was NOT hit by the final shot (from the rear per the HSCA) then I submit it is impossible to construct a shooting scenario without accepting the SBT.

Not that I accept the SBT. On the contrary, I suggest that this exercise must disprove the results of the HSCA acoustics study.

Unless I am missing something, I cannot see how three shots from the rear can 1) hit JFK; 2) hit JC; 3) hit Tague AND deliver JFK's head shot (that's FOUR THINGS) unless one bullet does two things. If you try to escape the dilemma by asssuming the third shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot, then I think you must be left with Tague being hit by the fourth and final shot, and that is inconsistent with his testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit.

Tim,

Good questions. I am not so sure Tague even knew he was hit until Buddy Walthers pointed it out to him. With that in mind, how reliable can his recollection be of exactly when he felt a sting in his cheek, and therefore how reliable is his version of the exact sequence of all the shots, including the accurate time stamp for the sting on his cheek?

Nevertheless, I can offer my humble opinion regarding the shooting. Based on the video footage and the more or less "well" documented damage to the 3 victims, and the presidential limousine, I would say it is more likely than not, that there were infact more than 3 shots involved in this episode. That is an opinion based on evidence, other than the acoustic evidence.

Shot 1. As to the sequence of the shots, I would say that the first shot struck the President apparently in the throat (could have been a ricochet bullet that struck him in the upper back that lodged itself on or near the spine and caused a fragment to separate from the main missile, which exited from the throat). Tom Purvis made a semi-plausible presentation on this. This fragment may have struck the limo above the windshield causing a dent and may have further struck JBC in the thigh. However, this is starting to sound like the SBT, and don't know if this is plausible.

Shot 2. Hit JBC in the armit, pierced through his lung and smashed his wrist. Don't ask me where the fragements and other missile remains are.

Shot 3 or 4. Missed, hit the curb and a fragment ricochet struck James Tague.

Shot 3 or 4. Hit Kennedy in the head.

Additionally there is a lot of (eye witness) evidence pointing to a shot from the grassy knoll: furrows in the grass on the south side of Elm, eye witness testimony of smoke on the knoll, a few witnesses on Elm even smelled gunpowder, an alleged missile was picked up by Buddy Walthers in the grass on south side of Elm.

1 and/or 4 could have been fired from other than TSBD.

Hi Frank,

I fixed the typo. Anything else that you need changed with the title here?

Regards, Antti

All off-topic posts deleted by me today, Monday March 10th 2008 at 12:49 p.m. Forum time. Further off-topic posts will result in moderation action.

Occipital - parietal region, is where the large defect in JFK's head was observed by numerous physicians and nurses, at Parkland Hospital, Dallas Tx, on 11/22/63 between 12:35-1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.

Bill,

I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic.

I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job.

I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with.

The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others.

The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view.

I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out.

If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do it on this thread.

Thanks!

Bill Miller Posted Yesterday, 10:13 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 27 2008, 01:06 PM)

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

With all due respect, it seems that the rules are what ever a moderator wants them to be at any given moment. One moderator says one thing, while another says something else. Maybe a lack of consistency is becoming part of the problem. Below are positions held by a moderator(s) opinion on a particular forum rule ............... yet seem contradictory to each other. (The second being over definitions that no one has explained what they had to do with 1963 techniques Vs. modern forensic testing)

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

Example 1

Posted remark: "...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

Moderator response: "This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:"

Example 2

Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2"

Moderator response: " .... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"?

Bill,

I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic.

I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job.

I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with.

The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others.

The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view.

I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out.

If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do not do it on this thread, but do it here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...45&start=45

Thanks!

Michael Crane Posted Today, 12:31 AM

Looks like it "might" say "Cross Country" in the back & "might" say "Custom" on the side.

*Don`t hold me to this.

I'd place my money on the word "Custom" being in that side trim.

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Today, 03:46 AM IP: 70.212.168.188 | Post #23 |

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 762

Joined: 11-October 04

From: Mason's Fort NM

Member No.: 1680

Warn: (0%)

Someone kindly sent me this link to an article in The Fourth Decade magazine about the 'Cozy Eight Apartments' on Beckley:

Francesca: perhaps this might be of help in your research.

This is the apartment house behind the Beckley St rooming house. I was recently call a xxxx as to the existence of this apartment house. I was told I was wrong that there was not ANY buildings behind where Oswald lived on Beckley. This is the place where I carved my intials in the drainingborad in the kitcken.

The steps of the red house on the left is the room Oswald rented. Oswald was ONI at this time.

(photo taken by Tosh Plumlee Feb.2000)

Tosh, thanks for this additional info and the photo. You say that "Oswald was ONI at this time". By ONI, I assume you mean Office of Naval Intelligence. Am I right? How did you find this out?

Interesting.

Tony Austin Posted Yesterday, 09:53 PM

Tom,

Thanks for answering my questions. I believe the idea of a bullet going through a tree branch does make sense because the bullet that stuck Kennedy in the upper back would have needed to lose a lot of kinetic energy if it was to only penetrate a short distance and fail to exit as the pathologists originally believed.

The idea of a fragment of the bullet continuing forward and out through the front of the trachea also makes sense. The neck would was described by Dr Malcolm Perry as being small in diameter (3 to 5mm) compared to the size of the bullet, a feature which usually suggests a wound of entry, but at the same time he described it as being a little ragged, a feature which usually suggests a wound of exit. However, a wound caused by an exiting fragment could make a ragged exit wound and it could still create a wound of small diameter.

You mentioned that the pathologists could not see the higher of the two entrance wounds because that portion of the skull had been blown out by the second shot to the head. However, you comment that the skull xrays do show the higher entrance wound on the back of the head and you suggest that in the later stages of the autopsy the missing pieces were probably brought in and put back into position and xrayed. The report written by the FBI agent in attendance (O'Neill) states that photographs and xrays were taken at the very beginning before the pathologists started the autopsy so there should be an xray showing a large area of skull missing including the higher entrance wound, so what happened to that xray? The FBI agent later reports fragments of skull arriving later and being xrayed but he never mentions fragments being put back into position and xrayed.

If skull fragments were placed back into their orginal position and xrayed I am surprised that the pathologists did not make use of this important information and incorporate it into their final report.

Tony

I believe the idea of a bullet going through a tree branch does make sense because the bullet that stuck Kennedy in the upper back would have needed to lose a lot of kinetic energy if it was to only penetrate a short distance and fail to exit as the pathologists originally believed.

I wonder why this bullet, allegedly lodged in Kennedy's neck was not x-rayed or otherwise discovered or mentioned in any reports. It would have clearly made the "official story" stronger, meaning a single shooter from high and behind the victim. This should have been a fairly trivial matter to ascertain, even in 1963, even by less experienced autopsists. I recall reading that this shallow wound was "probed". If so, the instrument would have struck the bullet, no? One would think that the person performing the probing would have stated that the instrument used, struck something hard, likely a bullet. At any rate he should have made some type of note of this.

Additionally I am confused as to what exactly would cause this tumbling bullet, that lost so much kinetic energy, to lose this fragment, once it had - as stated - lost enough energy to no longer have the required energy to traverse a human body?

I see that it would be more natural for the entire bullet to remain lodged somewhere in the body, than for the bulk of it to remain lodged inside and for a small fragment to continue on a path of its own, no?

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 01:28 AM

As attachment is included an enlargement of the HSCA photo of the anterior throat wound of JFK, as well as one of the letters of my correspondence with Dr. Malcolm O. Perry in regards to the ER Room Treatment of JFK.

Most who are familiar with the topic are also aware that the size of the anterior throat wound which JFK had upon arrival at Parkland, is a major issue in exactly what is responsible for this wound.

Primarly, this issue surrounds the reported size of the wound, which by virtually all accounts, was only from some 3mm to

5mm in size.

(see arrow on photo for wound location)

In that regards, John Dolva long ago took this photo and through the wizardry of a computer, closed the wound and demonstrated the "best" indication of what this wound actually apeared like prior to Dr. Perry having performed the tracheotomy incision.

And, although I copied it, where is is I certainly do not know at this point.

Therefore, John, if still out there, perhaps you or someone else who copied it can post the "closed wound" photo for all to see.

Nevertheless, this posting is not in regards to the size of the anterior throat wound which Dr. Perry as well as many others saw at Parkland.

It is about the size of the surgical incision.

Thanks for sharing that.

Had Dr. Perry been completely honest and willing to recall this issue, he would have mentioned his own views regarding whether this wound was an entry or an exit wound as well as his recollections of the dimensions of it.

On the other hand I do know that the Parkland Doctor's have been spoken to about this issue on numerous occasions, therefore I can understand why they are reluctant to do it again and again. One old event in particular comes to mind and that's the Robert Groden documentary. I can't but help think of all the attending Doctor's who placed the palms of their hands in the occipital-parietal regions of their own heads to demonstrate the size and location of the head injury of JFK.

John Simkin

View Member Profile

Remove Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Today, 07:13 AM IP: Private | Post #6 |

Super Member

Group: Admin

Posts: 11704

Joined: 16-December 03

From: Worthing, Sussex

Member No.: 7

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 25 2008, 07:07 AM)

This idea about saying that I am writing a book crossed my mind. However, I would prefer to not trick the police as when signing for the copies, I'd presumably have to state what book I'd be writing and when the expected release date would be occurring, and I'm not, how should I say it, the literary type.

On another note, if there is a genuine author out there who would like to attempt to obtain these materials, please let me know of your interest and I can give you the name and numbers for the appropriate "Suojelupoliisi" -officials for getting in touch with them regarding an attempt to have these released early.

I also had to downsize this attachment, but I do have an over 2 mb scan of the picture, which may be more legible than this attachment. So if interested, drop me a pm, with an e-mail address and I can send it to you.

Maybe you could say that you were working as a researcher for an author currently writing a book on the assassination. For example, I am sure Gerald McKnight would like to see copies of these documents.

John, I'd have to think about that and what to say. Obviously, as I have already spoken to them (him), he will recall who I am and think it funny that I didn't bring the book/author issue up the first time I bothered him.....

Mr. Simola seems to be a busy man, and I had to try a few times in order to get to talk to him. I got lucky 2 days after I managed to speak with his assistant and left a message for him regarding these documents. I'll think about it.

Of course it would be easier, if there was in fact a book being written by someone who'd have a genuine interest in these documents. Perhaps a 2nd or 3rd edition? Larry Hancock or Gerald McKnight do spring to mind.

I'd be willing to forward a letter with a full translation from either one to the "Suojelupoliisi" and act as an intermediary.

Peter Lemkin

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Feb 23 2008, 12:20 PM IP: 213.194.212.135 | Post #2 |

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 3074

Joined: 9-December 04

From: Europe

Member No.: 2082

Warn: (10%)

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 23 2008, 12:03 PM)

Attached something I have been working on obtaining recently. These are the previously unpublished visitor cards of Lee Oswald from Helsinki from 1959. These were filled in by Lee and the authorities in Finland in October 1959 while he was traveling through Helsinki on his way to Moscow, the USSR back then. When Lee was in Helsinki in 1959, he stayed at two different hotels. As per Finnish law he was required to fill in one of these "visitor cards" for each stay.

For some reason there are 3 cards, one seems to be written by the Finnish authorities (at a later date) and is a translation into Finnish. The Finnish "Suojelupoliisi" or FBI still has these original cards. I have attempted to get copies of the somplete cards but have been unsuccessful. I just spoke to the division head of the department in charge of this material earlier this week, and he explained it would require a full 60 years from the time they were filled in, until they can be published. They will therefore become public information in October 2019. An exception, permitting early publication, would be a book etc. of some major significance, for which they may allow the early publication of these.

Exceptionally, last Sunday, the Helsinki Newspaper, "Helsingin Sanomat" published sections of these Oswald cards. Unfortunately the newspaper did not release them in full. I have been in touch with the reporter in charge of the article, but she said she can not give me copies, unless the authorities agree to give them to me. They did not.

Enclosed are section of these 3 cards and a current day view from Oswald's hotel room window at the Klaus Kurki -hotel. It would be interesting to analyse the published sections of these to make sure all the information within them is accurate. It appears that in the Finnish card, under "Worth" as in Fort Worth Tx, someone has written: "alias Hidell".

Good finds. The alias Hidell is sensational! Do the signitures match those of Oswald? I would love to know if the Finnish Secret Service at the time had a file that still exists.....it's your 'turf'.....good luck....

Peter,

Yes, I believe this 3rd card proves that there was/is a file by the Finnish officials on LHO. However, these cards may well be the extent of the file. I suspect the addition of "alias Hidell" has been added after 11/22/1963. Other interesting legible notes here are, the one that states that Lee took (apparently the train) from Helsinki to "Vainikkala" and then on to Moscow. Vainikkala being the border town on the Finnish side just before entering Russia. This notation therefore means that the individual they have this "file" on did have his movements tracked at some point. My guess being in 1963 and 1964 during the WC.

Gary Buell wrote:

If they released them to a Finnish newspaper, perhaps you could enlist the aid of an American reporter. If they were contacted by Jeff Morley or Joe Trento they might release them. Or tell them your writing a book?

Gary,

This idea about saying that I am writing a book crossed my mind. However, I would prefer to not trick the police as when signing for the copies, I'd presumably have to state what book I'd be writing and when the expected release date would be occurring, and I'm not, how should I say it, the literary type.

On another note, if there is a genuine author out there who would like to attempt to obtain these materials, please let me know of your interest and I can give you the name and numbers for the appropriate "Suojelupoliisi" -officials for getting in touch with them regarding an attempt to have these released early.

I also had to downsize this attachment, but I do have an over 2 mb scan of the picture, which may be more legible than this attachment. So if interested, drop me a pm, with an e-mail address and I can send it to you.

Antti

Attached something I have been working on obtaining recently. These are the previously unpublished visitor cards of Lee Oswald from Helsinki from 1959. These were filled in by Lee and the authorities in Finland in October 1959 while he was traveling through Helsinki on his way to Moscow, the USSR back then. When Lee was in Helsinki in 1959, he stayed at two different hotels. As per Finnish law he was required to fill in one of these "visitor cards" for each stay.

For some reason there are 3 cards, one seems to be written by the Finnish authorities (at a later date) and is a translation into Finnish. The Finnish "Suojelupoliisi" or FBI still has these original cards. I have attempted to get copies of the somplete cards but have been unsuccessful. I just spoke to the division head of the department in charge of this material earlier this week, and he explained it would require a full 60 years from the time they were filled in, until they can be published. They will therefore become public information in October 2019. An exception, permitting early publication, would be a book etc. of some major significance, for which they may allow the early publication of these.

Exceptionally, last Sunday, the Helsinki Newspaper, "Helsingin Sanomat" published sections of these Oswald cards. Unfortunately the newspaper did not release them in full. I have been in touch with the reporter in charge of the article, but she said she can not give me copies, unless the authorities agree to give them to me. They did not.

Enclosed are section of these 3 cards and a current day view from Oswald's hotel room window at the Klaus Kurki -hotel. It would be interesting to analyse the published sections of these to make sure all the information within them is accurate. It appears that in the Finnish card, under "Worth" as in Fort Worth Tx, someone has written: "alias Hidell".

Thomas H. Purvis

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Yesterday, 07:41 PM IP: 205.188.117.196 | Post #12 |

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 3311

Joined: 17-June 05

Member No.: 3092

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE(Lee Forman @ Feb 21 2008, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Feb 21 2008, 05:30 PM)

Trying an upload!

Hey Tom.

I find this to be a highly plausible and logical scenario - it also meshes well with the point I was trying to make elsewhere, as to a botched 'graze' shot. However, a few questions:

- You are calling this shot #2 - so preceeding shot to the head would have been the side entry? Just behind the ear?

- This is 'shot #2' however, the second 'headshot' - not necessarily the 'second' shot fired?

- Have you considered the angle/trajectory and managed to theorize as to the shooter's location based upon this 'graze' shot?

- Would the impact of this graze shot have flipped open the scalp forward, and created a fracture line at the top of the scalp itself?

- Would the resulting split round have been responsible for creating the dent in the chrome around the windshield? The blood on the windshield, Connally's wounds, etc.?

- When you mention a third shot - it sounds as if you are speaking to the shot in the back, as opposed to another head shot?

- How do you account for the blood/brain matter which struck Hargis & Chaney - is that the third shot?

- How do you account for the Parkland Doctor's witnessing the cavity at the rear of the head - is this associated with the first headshot?

- If Oswald allegedly fired three rounds, how does this fit into the grand scheme of things, given the multiple other accounts of bullets striking other locations, unless there was more than one shooter present? eg - sot that 'bucked up' the grass at the concrete skirt, shot that struck Elm, shot that struck the curb at Main st and wounded Tague - at a minimum?

- How are you accounting for the throat wound?

- What about the movement of the head - slightly forward from what we have available in the extant z-film footage - what accounts for the rearward jerk if not another shot following this one from the front?

I think that last one is the most significant for me anyway - since I know you doubt the existence of a shooter at the front.

Carry on - very interested...

- lee

One Step/shot back:

Shot#1

Fired in the vicinity of Z204/206.

Attached image(s)

Reduced: 74% of original size [ 864 x 672 ] - Click to view full image

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

Tom,

Regarding this shot to the upper right section of the back: How do you explain the related exit wound, given the picture demonstrated entry location? I can agree with the approximate entry as presented by you.

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 01:27 AM

Headshot#1

This I can buy Mr. Purvis. However, I remain unconvinced there was a successful 2nd headshot.