The "Headshots"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From the "Blood Spatter" Topic:

Tom, Rahn and DiMaio miss a few things. BIG things

Pat!

Were you going to eventually get around to explaining to all that item "B" of the anterior/posterior X-ray is where a bullet began it's initial exit from within the skull of JFK?

Were you also going to eventually get around to explaining to all that item "B" as well as item "A"/aka the cowlick entry as determined by the HSCA, were in that portion of the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons reported as "missing"?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0036b.htm

Tom certainly did not "miss" too much in that regards!

One would have thought that while you were coming up with a determination that those bullet fragments seen in the X-rays are outside the limits of the skull, that one would have caught this.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Pat!

After all, one merely has to look at the Z-film in order to determine that the section of the skull, which contains items "A" as well as "B" have been removed from the top of the skull, and now lay over onto the right hand side of JFK's head.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z328.jpg

As well as the fact that the rear/occipital area of JFK's skull is intact.

Now, lets take a look at Z312, just prior to the first headshot:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

In that regards, one should note the edge of the hairline and the top center of the head.

The edge of the hairline being the initial point of bullet entrance as shown by the "blob" of cerebral tissue on the autopsy photograph of the back of the head, and the top center of the head being the initial exit point of a bullet from within the skull, which bullet was travelling from rear towards the front, and which fragments thereafter removed a considerable amount of the parietal/parietal-frontal bone of the skull forward of the exit point.

Now, under the assumption that Roy Kellerman, as well as all of the autopsy surgeons were not incorrect, and I can assure that the anterior posterior X-ray is not incorrect, then exactly how is you believe that a single bullet entered the scalp of JFK at the edge of the hairline, then turned upwards to tunnel through the soft tissue of the neck to strik the skull at a point higher than the scalp entrance, and then exit out the top of JFK's head, while, as shown after Z313, removing a portion of the skull cap at the top of the head, yet leaving the occipital region of the skull undisturbed?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

Might want to draw you a line from the rear hairlilne to the top center of the head, to determine exactly where this mythological shot came from.

The "cowlick" entry left it's trail of bone fragments as well as lead residue/fragments, in a generally parallel line which runs from the initial point of entry to that point where it began it's initial exit from the skull and then left the metallic residue outline embedded within the inner table of the skull upon it's initial contact and beginning to exit.

The EOP entry, as far as can be determined, left no metallic fragments, and merely left a pathway of disturbed tissue and a slight path of emphysema from it's point of impact, to it's point of exit in the forward area of the frontal lobe.

The HSCA is not incorrect in regards to the bullet entrance which they determined. Exactly why would anyone think so?

The three autopsy surgeons are not incorrect in regards to the bullet entrance which they found, measured, etc;. Exactly why would anyone think so?

Three shots were fired, and there are witnesses to the impact of each of these three shots.

And, if one were to actually inform as to how easy it is to figure that one out, it would make a lot of persons slightly upset and mad.

Did you believe 'THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and if so, exactly why?

[Bill Miller]

Al Carrier said something to me that maybe you can confirm or deny .... Al states that you and he have met. In talking about his meeting you, Al stated .... "I was a gate guard at Puerto Limon in '81 when we met there or at SOA later when he saw me there?" Is the statement Al made accurate????

Thanks![/b]

Is the statement Al made accurate????

The correct question would be: Is ANY statement Al made accurate???

A professional would not say what you did. Al has since contacted me and made me aware that I confused you with Tosh Plumlee (Tom vs. Tosh). So yes, Al's statement was correct and it was I who got it wrong. Al has worked everything from CSI to assisting in the protection of the President of the United States. The man is no fool, unlike other individuals that I can think of.

[Bill Miller]

After all, one merely has to look at the Z-film in order to determine that the section of the skull, which contains items "A" as well as "B" have been removed from the top of the skull, and now lay over onto the right hand side of JFK's head.

Wow! please point out the avulsed bones in the Zapruder film that were witnessed by the Parkland doctors and nurses.

[David G. Healy]

Al Carrier said something to me that maybe you can confirm or deny .... Al states that you and he have met. In talking about his meeting you, Al stated .... "I was a gate guard at Puerto Limon in '81 when we met there or at SOA later when he saw me there?" Is the statement Al made accurate????

Thanks![/b]

Is the statement Al made accurate????

The correct question would be: Is ANY statement Al made accurate???

A professional would not say what you did. Al has since contacted me and made me aware that I confused you with Tosh Plumlee (Tom vs. Tosh). So yes, Al's statement was correct and it was I who got it wrong. Al has worked everything from CSI to assisting in the protection of the President of the United States. The man is no fool, unlike other individuals that I can think of.

Miller give it a break.... so what? A regular traffic cop in Duluth could make the same claim.... You blow a claim, misquote and then identity the wrong person....then you blame the other side of the argument...? You're a priceless Lone Nutter in CT clothing (not to mention a joke).... Gawd bless you!

Edited March 29, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Al Carrier said something to me that maybe you can confirm or deny .... Al states that you and he have met. In talking about his meeting you, Al stated .... "I was a gate guard at Puerto Limon in '81 when we met there or at SOA later when he saw me there?" Is the statement Al made accurate????

Thanks![/b]

Is the statement Al made accurate????

The correct question would be: Is ANY statement Al made accurate???

A professional would not say what you did. Al has since contacted me and made me aware that I confused you with Tosh Plumlee (Tom vs. Tosh). So yes, Al's statement was correct and it was I who got it wrong. Al has worked everything from CSI to assisting in the protection of the President of the United States. The man is no fool, unlike other individuals that I can think of.

"A professional would not say what you did."

First off at bat!

Did God die and appoint you in charge of judgement over all "professionals"?

If not, for the enjoyment of the reading public, please state all of those extensive qualifications which you have been trained and schooled in, which:

1. Even made you some sort of "professional".

2. Qualified you to give judgement over other professionals. (even within your own specific field of endeavor)

3. Appointed you as the "Professional Judge" over this forum.

Secondly!

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

Don't screw with me on an issue like this. You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Al

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

Since you now appear to be the "mouthpiece" for Carrier, perhaps you should ask him as to exactly what the law says about making personal threats over the internet?

Then, one of any intellect, just might ask the level of "professionalism" in which a member of the Police Force is stupid enough to conduct such criminal activities.

So, as Al Carrier is well aware, as a member of a Police Force who has demonstrated a personal and physical threat to another party over the internet, he could easily, at minimum, be suspended with a reprimand, and at worst, be dismissed from the police force.

And, in event that he personally sticks his nose and idiotic "Canyon Shoot" theories back into my conversations, then I just may email that threat to his Commanding Officer.

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

Post #101

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 325

Joined: 1-November 04

Member No.: 1814

Mr. Purvis,

You are beginning to tire me and I am sure many others here on the forum with your lunatic rantings about Dan Marvin. I am also getting a little tired of your downplaying my background. I am a certified firearms instructor for my state. Are you? I am a certified weapons armorer for three major weapons manufacturers, two being should weapons. Are you? I spent several years instructing firearms to people being paid to carry and utilize them on a daily basis. Have you? I have received a national award from the International Association of Police of Chiefs for surviving and armed attack. Have you? I am a certified court expert in the field of weapons and ballistics. Are you?

I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions. What have you done? I served my country and you are not capable of researching how I did and I will not state any more than I have here and on Lancer. You keep refering to your military career and comparing how I was in diapers when you served. I am not a teenager, I am in my forties. That does not make you more qualified, just old and from your postings, apparently scenile.

You were kind enough to accept my issues of gravitational pull and trigger travel and then in the same breath stated that these obstacles can be manipulated when sighting the rifle in. Please tell me when LHO was able to sight the rifle in from a sixty foot elevation. Also explain to us how sighting a rifle in can account for a poor trigger when utilizing such a piece of crap rifle for precision shooting. I guess my years as a firearms instructor was totally wrong when the teachings and experience showed that trigger control had to be overcome with repititions.

But what the hell do I know, I am a podunct cop. What exactly are you?

And please tell the forum how a Marine radar tech received his training in tracking a moving target. You keep saying how easy it is, please tell us how and how you are so masterful at accomplishing such a feat when nobody else who has tried it has been. If you can explain all of this, I bowed down to your aged expertise.

And BTW, I was NEVER shown to be liable in a court of law when it came to use of force. Please post what I had posted that showed this. What I have posted is that a case was settled out of court because it wasn't financially feasible to challenge it for what the person was suing for. But you are an expert in all of this so you must have an explanaition for misrepresenting the facts and how could be charged with defamation of character in a civil court for this posting alone.

Don't screw with me on an issue like this. You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Al ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #111

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 325

Joined: 1-November 04

Member No.: 1814

CLARIFICATION ON POSTINGS OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF OR SO...

I have not logged onto Lancer or The Education Forum here for nearly two weeks. I was brought to it when a fellow researcher whom I respect a great deal sent me an e-mail advising me of his support of the nasty exchanges I have been having with Tom Purvis on this thread. I have now reviewed this and while I tend to agree with most of the things posted here in my name, it has not been me posting them. If I am doing the math correctly for the time to calculate it into Central Time where I am at, the posts have been entered either when I have been at work in the middle of the night or in the middle of my sleep during the late mornings. I have had this problem once before on Lancer a year and a half ago or better. I had upgraded my firewall and added internet security software and a secure router. In the past month or so, the three have had problems interfacing and opening my computer to intrusion.

I apologize to Mr. Purvis, although I don't necessarily agree with his scenario, I do not treat respectable researchers in the way that he has been in my name in the past two weeks or so. Whoever has taken my identity has obviously studied my past posts here and on Lancer as they are representing me well, except for their failure to conceive some ballistic issues and their demeanor toward others such as Mr. Purvis.

I am asking that Mr. John Simkin cancel my registration to this forum so this does not continue. I am off to Southern New Mexico/Southern Arizona in less than two weeks for a week or so and when I return, will hook up with Mr. Simkin again to reregister. In the meantime, I will fix my computer security issues. For those who wish to contact me during this downtime, I ask that you e-mail me at my work e-mail at al.carrier@waterloo-ia.org and I will respond. I just want to assure everyone it is me responding.

I apologize for this long exchange that is in poor taste and done in my name. I hope others realize that this is not my character.

Al C.

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

Now!

In the event that you wish to discuss actual "non-professional" behavior.

Then rest assured that it is unprofessional, within the community of the Police Forces, to call members of another Police Force, ugly and improper names.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=6092&st=45

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

Might I recommend: ayoob@attglobal.net

Or else search: Massad Ayoob

or else: http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/biblio.html

Ayoob, Massad

The Ayoob Files - The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View

in: American Handgunner, March/April 1993

Gun experts examine a number of issues related to Oswald's MC rifle, his shooting skill, ballistics, and the reaction of Kennedy to the shots. The single-assassin theory is found to be well within the limits of plausibility.

Perhaps Mr. Simkin will approach Massad and see if he will discuss the accuracy; integrity; capability; reliability; operating speed; etc; of the Carcano Rifle.

Then again, Mr. Massad Ayoob may just tell everyone to read and review what he wrote for American Handgunner some 13 years ago.

(Tom Purvis)

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

Once again I am shaking my head at the likes of Mr. Purvis. In the fifteen or so odd years that I have been researching the JFK Assassination and the six or so years that I have been public with my research, I have found that the majority of my time has been spent wasted on the likes of Mr. Purvis and others who have deemed themselves worthy to interpret data and challenge those who have a background in such matters that are capable of intepreting data. The Mr. Purvis types will always find some prostitute to call an expert to drive their THEORY home while interpreting video and testimony to fit their THEORY

An example of the prostitute to prove a point issue, lets take Mr. Ayoob since Mr. Purvis has used him here to prove his point. Masad Ayoob is a Reserve Police Officer who boasts of an extensive background in the Middle East and runs a shooting academy where he makes large sums of money from in-bread red-necked derelicts from both the civilian and LE market, that like Mr. Purvis believe what they read when they wished to believe it. Before one takes too much credibility from anything the likes of Ayoob says, I would recommend they ask someone from a military or LE firearms background on their take of Mr. Ayoob.

(Al Carrier)

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

Now, for those who are unaware, I invited Massad Ayoob to respond, and he pretty well sent Al Carrier back home with his dirty underwear in hand as when Massad got through with him, he did not take time to even pack before running for cover.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encque...er&ie=UTF-8

Especially since one can find up to 11,700 "hits" on the internet in regards to Massad Ayoob's recognized expertise in firearms.

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

And, without going into great detail of the "Hero Worship'" which Carrier exemplified for LTC Dan Marvin, United States Army Quartermast Supply Corps (Retired), this demonstrated that Carrier knows nothing about the US Army Special Forces, and not too much about the US Army in general.

Which clearly demonstrates that he is just another "know nothing"/aka "wannabee".

===============================================================================

"Al has since contacted me and made me aware that I confused "

Hate to be the one to inform you of the fact Bill, but you have been confused, for at least (by your own statements) 25 years.

"Al has worked everything from CSI to assisting in the protection of the President of the United States. The man is no fool, unlike other individuals that I can think of."

Shall we place at the top of the "fool's" listing, those persons who not only "fell" for Carrier's line of BS, but also operate as his mouthpiece?

[Miles Scull]

Shall we place at the top of the "fool's" listing, those persons who not only "fell" for Carrier's line of BS, but also operate as his mouthpiece?

The contention, which bears directly on this thread's topic of The "Headshots", aka/ the plural of "headshot", that the Z-313 shot originated from the right front is developed via a new line of reasoning.

From the Texas Monthly, 11/98 issue.

Rosemary Willis......

Quote:

"As the motorcade made the turn from Houston to

Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first

shot rang out. I didn't know what it was, but I was

looking for what I heard. And the pigeons immediately

ascended off the roof of the school book depository

building - that's what caught my eye.

The second shot that I heard came from behind my

right shoulder. By that time the limousine had already

moved farther down.

And the next one, right after that, still came from the

right but not from as far back - it was up some.

Still behind me, but not as far back as the other one.

And the next one that came was from the grassy knoll,

and I saw smoke coming through the trees, into the air,

and fragments of his head ascended into the air, and

from my vision, focal point, the smoke and the fragments,

you know, everything met.

I mean, there's no question in my mind what I saw or heard."

(Bernie)

For a long time a focus was on Hatman (aka Shorty). But now that illusion has been exploded by refuting BM's idea that Shorty would have rested his rifle between the fence slats, which is a nonsense on the logic.

I conjecture that what led BM down the wrong path was his misguided employment of search tools found in the field of cryptozoology.

That aside, the smoke seen easily could have have originated from Duncan Man at 33' from the corner as the wind that day was from NW to SE.

Another point:

If the Z film was altered, the question arises: Why was it altered to show a shot from the right front? Such an alteration would have been the opposite of what LN theory requires.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Shall we place at the top of the "fool's" listing, those persons who not only "fell" for Carrier's line of BS, but also operate as his mouthpiece?

The contention, which bears directly on this thread's topic of The "Headshots", aka/ the plural of "headshot", that the Z-313 shot originated from the right front is developed via a new line of reasoning.

From the Texas Monthly, 11/98 issue.

Rosemary Willis......

Quote:

"As the motorcade made the turn from Houston to

Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first

shot rang out. I didn't know what it was, but I was

looking for what I heard. And the pigeons immediately

ascended off the roof of the school book depository

building - that's what caught my eye.

The second shot that I heard came from behind my

right shoulder. By that time the limousine had already

moved farther down.

And the next one, right after that, still came from the

right but not from as far back - it was up some.

Still behind me, but not as far back as the other one.

And the next one that came was from the grassy knoll,

and I saw smoke coming through the trees, into the air,

and fragments of his head ascended into the air, and

from my vision, focal point, the smoke and the fragments,

you know, everything met.

I mean, there's no question in my mind what I saw or heard."

(Bernie)

For a long time a focus was on Hatman (aka Shorty). But now that illusion has been exploded by refuting BM's idea that Shorty would have rested his rifle between the fence slats, which is a nonsense on the logic.

I conjecture that what led BM down the wrong path was his misguided employment of search tools found in the field of cryptozoology.

That aside, the smoke seen easily could have have originated from Duncan Man at 33' from the corner as the wind that day was from NW to SE.

Another point:

If the Z film was altered, the question arises: Why was it altered to show a shot from the right front? Such an alteration would have been the opposite of what LN theory requires.

Why was it altered to show a shot from the right front?

For those of us who have only limited capabilities, we have to stick with what is actually demonstrated.

That being the impact, most probably of a bullet, to the head of JFk.

Other than that, the Zapruder film demonstrates little other factual information.

Except! To those who can see butterflies and sailing ships in the clouds, as well as unicorns; the tooth fairy; as well as multiply mysterious assassins hiding throughout Dealy Plaza.

I would thusly supposed that also, not unlike some, there would be those who also claim that they can observed the bullet in flilght as well.

Anyone who claims that they can tell absollutely, the directionality of shots fired, by looking at the Z-film, has either an extremely vivid imagination or a complete lack of research and understanding of the forensic; ballistic; pathological and physical evidence.

Or, quite probably, both!

[Bill Miller]

Miller give it a break.... so what? A regular traffic cop in Duluth could make the same claim.... You blow a claim, misquote and then identity the wrong person....then you blame the other side of the argument...? You're a priceless Lone Nutter in CT clothing (not to mention a joke).... Gawd bless you!

Blow and misquote a claim ... are you nuts or what! I copied and pasted Al's remarks that were emailed to me, thus there was no blown claim or anything misquoted. How can you ever deal with the JFK assassination when you make such silly mistakes as the one you just made.

The only thing you got right was that I did confuse the reference to 'Tosh' as being to 'Tom'.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

After all, one merely has to look at the Z-film in order to determine that the section of the skull, which contains items "A" as well as "B" have been removed from the top of the skull, and now lay over onto the right hand side of JFK's head.

Wow! please point out the avulsed bones in the Zapruder film that were witnessed by the Parkland doctors and nurses.

Wow! please point out the avulsed bones in the Zapruder film that were witnessed by the Parkland doctors and nurses.

In the event that you would cease to attempt to resolve the issues by "looking" at the Z-film, and thereafter actually do some research into the matter, then you would know exactly why the EOP damage is not visible in the Z-film.

However, since Dr. Boswell clearly made a drawing of the damage, as well as the lateral X-ray also clearly demonstrating this damage, then those who have actually conducted research (other than "resolution by Z-film interpretation") have known of the EOP damage for a long, long time.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0036b.htm

It's called "RESEARCH" Miller!

Try it sometime, you just may suprise yourself as to what one can actually learn.

P.S. It's that item marked "B", for those such as yourself who have actually never researched the subject matter.

[Mark Knight]

To get this thread back on topic, and away from the personal attacks...I address this query to Tom Purvis.

Tom, I can pretty well follow your logic about the three shots. What I'm having trouble grasping is exactly where--in relation to Z-film frame numbers, since that is the "accepted" yardstick of reference--the third shot struck JFK. What Z-film frame corresponds to this bullet strike, and how do the positions of Jackie, Clint Hill, et al, relate to this strike. In other words, does Hill's position at the time of the alleged third bullet strike advance or conflict with the theory? What about Jackie's position? As far as JBC's position, it is apparently substantially unchanged from Z313 through the end of the Z-film, as best I can determine.

What about the other assassination films? Is the moment of the third bullet strike shown? Is there any evidence from the other films that might bolster your point about the third bullet strike? I think I know what the survey plat shows; I'm just having trouble making that plat correspond with the more familiar Z-film evidence.

This is not to be construed as criticism so much as a search for some clarity. Help me out, Tom.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

To get this thread back on topic, and away from the personal attacks...I address this query to Tom Purvis.

Tom, I can pretty well follow your logic about the three shots. What I'm having trouble grasping is exactly where--in relation to Z-film frame numbers, since that is the "accepted" yardstick of reference--the third shot struck JFK. What Z-film frame corresponds to this bullet strike, and how do the positions of Jackie, Clint Hill, et al, relate to this strike. In other words, does Hill's position at the time of the alleged third bullet strike advance or conflict with the theory? What about Jackie's position? As far as JBC's position, it is apparently substantially unchanged from Z313 through the end of the Z-film, as best I can determine.

What about the other assassination films? Is the moment of the third bullet strike shown? Is there any evidence from the other films that might bolster your point about the third bullet strike? I think I know what the survey plat shows; I'm just having trouble making that plat correspond with the more familiar Z-film evidence.

This is not to be construed as criticism so much as a search for some clarity. Help me out, Tom.

And the answer is: Because he needed the "Klein's Scope for the short rifle"!

I'm sorry! Since it was you Mark, I thought perhaps we were back on the Carcano ordering!

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

Tom, I can pretty well follow your logic about the three shots. What I'm having trouble grasping is exactly where--in relation to Z-film frame numbers, since that is the "accepted" yardstick of reference--the third shot struck JFK.

Mark;

One gets into severe trouble when they actually assign a "Z-frame" number to anything.

And, this is especialy true for the third shot.

Nevertheless, as you are no doubt aware by now, the SS assigned a survey stationing of 4+95 (actually their's is 4+96 (5+00 minus 4-feet) = 4+96), however, what was surveyed in was stationing 4+95.

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

Which location is of course approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313 impact at stationing 465.3

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

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

With that stated, from "best available data"*, this places the third shot in the vicinity of Z350. (+/-) a frame.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

Which certainly makes Z350's condition appear quite suspicious.

In other words, does Hill's position at the time of the alleged third bullet strike advance or conflict with the theory?

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

Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left.

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0355a.htm

A little known and frequently overlooked item is Shaneyfelt being questioned as to exactly when Clint Hill placed a hand and foot on the Presidential Limo.

To which Shaneyfelt replied Z343 for the first placement of a hand and Z368 for placement of a foot on the limo bumper.

NOPE!

Beginning with: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z340.jpg

to: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg with more distortion.

to: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z342.jpg

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

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z344.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z345.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z346.jpg

Clint Hill can clearly be observed "rising" in elevation, even though the sprocket hole blocks view of his foot.

If one will take a good close look at the Nix film (in slow motion), they will see Clint Hill when he raised up onto the rear bumper of the Limo for the first time, only to have his foot slip off and thereafter have to run after the limo holding onto the support bar.

Yet! The Zapruder film clearly does not shot this "Rising Man".

Which tends to fully support that a frame or two is not present in the existing version of the film which we see.

Therefore, assigning "Frame #'s" is at best a good guess.

Nevertheless, Clint Hill's testimony is of critical importance!

Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left.

As far as JBC's position, it is apparently substantially unchanged from Z313 through the end of the Z-film, as best I can determine.

Nope!

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

JBC is sitting almost erect with his right arm/hand raised.

Which of course we were also told!

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

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?

Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.

Mr. STERN - To his right?

And, by Z345, JBC is leaned completely over into Nellie's lap.

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

Down out of sight with his back/right shoulder exposed between the open area between the jump seats.

What about the other assassination films? Is the moment of the third bullet strike shown? Is there any evidence from the other films that might bolster your point about the third bullet strike? I think I know what the survey plat shows; I'm just having trouble making that plat correspond with the more familiar Z-film evidence.

This is not to be construed as criticism so much as a search for some clarity. Help me out, Tom.

No other film is known to have the possibility of having caught on film the impact which James ALtgens ovserved directly in front of his posiltion.

The Nix film would not have caught this as the view was blocked by bystanders, as well as the fact that unlike the Z313 impact, the residual debri (cerebral tissue/etc:) was blown mostly downwards and forwards towards Nellie & JBC due to the position of JFK's head.

There exists the possibility that that the Muchmore film may have at one time had some of this impact captured.

But, not unlike the Z-film, we will most likely never know for certain.

Again, a key element is the "Rising Man" as clearly seen in the Nix film when Clint Hill first rises onto the back bumper of the Presidential Limo, and which absolutely is not demonstrated in the frames of the Z-film.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Whereas Mr. Baker's topic in regards to Z313 has relatively well taken care of the "Cowlick"/aka Z313/aka skull cap/aka second shot fired, shot to the head of JFK, perhaps a few final words on the third/aka/Altgens/aka EOP entry.

Especially for those who claim to have devoted some 25 years or so to having studied the witness testimonies, etc;

First off at bat, we have the lateral skull X-ray of JFK taken during the autopsy.

This X-ray clearly deleniates two separate segments of JFK's skull which were severely fractured from the head.

"A" being that "skull cap" section which is primarily parietal bone, which was separated as a result of the cowlick entry/akaZ313 impact, and which portion of skull was blown over onto the right hand side of JFK's head as a result of this impact.

And, "B" being that portion of JFK's skull which encompassed the occipital/occipital parietal region of the skull, and which portion of the skull was subsequently fractured as a result of the EOP/aka Altgens/aka third shot impact to the EOP region of the skull.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Next up!

We have Dr. Boswell's drawing which was made at the intiial examination of the head of JFK.

It is noted that the portion of the skull which would represent the "skull cap" section, which was blown off as a result of the Z313 impact, is listed as "missing".

However, Dr. Boswell clearly, to the extent of his abililty" drew in the "radiating" lines of fragmentation which ran from the occipital-parietal region of the skull, downwards towards the Occiput of the skull.

In addition, the small "half-moon" fragment at the bottom, represents a portion of one skull fragment from the occipital region of the skull which contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance through the skull.

When this fragment was re-inserted into the occipital region, it completed the re-assembly of the occipital/EOP wound of entry.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Next up!

So! In addition to having "pictures" with which to sort this out, we also have the written word as well.

Dr. Humes clearly states that the wound of the "occiput" has fractures of the skull radiating outwards from it's location.