The "Headshots"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now, one of the first items of which they taught us in "Aerial Imagry Interpretation" as a division of Nuclear Weaponry Targeting, was to insure that one was not looking at a "reverse image" print.

As, they have been known to confuse many.

Therefore, prior to proceeding, might I recommend that we "flip" your photo, in order that we are no longer looking at your reverse image print.

That always helps for starters.

P.S. You were aware that this was a "reverse image" print, were you not?

Now that the photo is correctly oriented, lets review a few items.

First off, the phot was taken from the FRONT of JFK's head, looking rearward.

That areas generallly within the following portion of the photo, constitutes the parietal as well as occipital portion of the skull which was not present when the autopsy initially began, and which is located primarily in the right hemisphere of the skull.

Your reversed version of the photograph shows a frontal/parietal wound. You’ve stated, “the parietal as well as occipital portion of the skull.”

Please explain to me what kind of bullet will enter the cowlick area, blow out the side of the skull and exit the top portion of the scalp leaving a nice round margin around the exit hole. Bullet exit holes caused by fragmented or expanded bullets usually have irregular margins.

Don

Your reversed version of the photograph

It is the autopsy photo printed correctly, as opposed to the "reverse image" which you have and which is produced from a negative which has been "flipped".

Had you reviewed the HSCA testimonies of Dr. Humes & Dr. Boswell, as well as studied the HSCA exhibits listing, then you would have found that this photograph is photograph 44 which represents an "anterior" (frontal) view of the President's head looking somewhat downwards into the (cranial cavity) in which the brain is removed and that the scalp in the front is reflected back over the frontal area of the head.

You’ve stated, “the parietal as well as occipital portion of the skull.”

"constitutes the parietal as well as occipital portion of the skull which was not present when the autopsy initially began,"

Try reading the autopsy report as well as Dr. Boswell's drawing, as opposed to problem resolution by looking at "reverse image" photography.

You will find that Dr. Humes clearly stated that the "defect" in which there was actuall absence of skull bone involved chiefly the parietal area of the skull but extended somewhat into the occipital area as well.

The correctly printed photograph, demonstrates this area of the skull as absent, and is that area to which Dr. Humes referred.

Please explain to me what kind of bullet will enter the cowlick area, blow out the side of the skull and exit the top portion of the scalp

Since you, and or someone with whom you have spoken, made parts of this up, then you may as well make up whatever answer you desire to go with it.

As is clearly evidenced in the anterior posterior X-ray, the bullet began it's initial exit from within the skull, just a few inches forward of the "cowlick entry". This can be determined by the configuration of the metallic residue which has been deposited on the INNER table of the skull as well as along the length of the channel through the skull which the bullet initially began to make.

Thereafter, the bullet was, as shown in previous drawings, torn apart into several pieces, which sent fragments in a variety of directions at a variety of different velocities.

Bullet exit holes caused by fragmented or expanded bullets usually have irregular margins.

To begin with, FMJ bullets are not normally cut in half by an encounter with the skull.

Nevertheless, this one was!

Had you reviewed Dr. Humes handwritten notes, he clearly described the EXIT wound of the skull as well as gave it's exact size. (2.5 to 3 cm)/aka 1-inch to 1 1/4-inch in diameter.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol17_0032b.htm

Just because it is a small photograph, does not mean that the exit wound was necessarily small.

On the other hand, we could go with your version and have JFK being shot in the head with a bullet which exceeded 1-inch in diameter.

P.S. Next time, don't place the Harper Fragment in a position such that it covers the ruler which the autopsy surgeons utilized to give a "scale" to the photo's.

[Miles Scull]

Just wanted to make that observation ... continue on.

You are correct in your analysis of the Holland location. I was wrong.

Your impossible midget hatman shooter, who must have been standing back from the 5ft ( on his side) fence, is in the Holland location, and could not have fired a shot from behind the fence at this elevation. My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan

My so-called 'midget shooter' seems to have been the person who fired before the Badge Man, thus he has had a moment to start to back away from the fence. I might also add that Moorman is looking uphill, so this person will look short to the fence if they are not standing right up against the fence. I can only say that if I had done the deed .... I would have stood back a few feet from the fence so not to be easily seen from the street as people looked up the knoll and I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Mar 16 2007, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE

... My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan

I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done.

Miles

Edit: attribution

The question of headshots originating from the picket fence is further demonstarted by the elimination of Midget man (aka Hatman) as dud.

One other possibility remains: Duncan man at 33 feet from the corner.

[Miles Scull]

One other possibility: re: origin of headshots:

Also:

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Just wanted to make that observation ... continue on.

You are correct in your analysis of the Holland location. I was wrong.

Your impossible midget hatman shooter, who must have been standing back from the 5ft ( on his side) fence, is in the Holland location, and could not have fired a shot from behind the fence at this elevation. My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan

My so-called 'midget shooter' seems to have been the person who fired before the Badge Man, thus he has had a moment to start to back away from the fence. I might also add that Moorman is looking uphill, so this person will look short to the fence if they are not standing right up against the fence. I can only say that if I had done the deed .... I would have stood back a few feet from the fence so not to be easily seen from the street as people looked up the knoll and I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Mar 16 2007, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE

... My shooter is a more likely candidate in my opinion.

Duncan

I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done.

Miles

Edit: attribution

The question of headshots originating from the picket fence is further demonstarted by the elimination of Midget man (aka Hatman) as dud.

One other possibility remains: Duncan man at 33 feet from the corner.

One other possibility remains: Duncan man at 33 feet from the corner.

Nah!

There always exist the possibility that "squirrel man" hiding in the top of some tree did it.

As well of course:

1. Greer did it!

2. SS Agent Hickey did it!

3. Badgeman did it!

4. Storm sewer drain man did it!

5. "Black Dog" man did it!

6. Space Alien's did it!

7. "Kidnap/wound alteration" specialist crew did it!

8. Make up/dream up something new "man" did it!------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone like to take an "educated" guess as to exactly why no one of any rational sense believes anything which is stated on the subject matter of the JFK assassination.

Just so the record is absolutely clear:

There exist absolutely ZERO, forensic; ballistic; pathological; and or physical FACT that JFK was struck by any bullet fired from any direction other than from the REAR AND ABOVE!

One can post all of their cute little photo's of Dealy Plaza they so desire, which most assuredly is far more simple than attempting to get involved in an understanding of the factual evidence, and thereafter, not unlike Manson; Koresh; Jones; LeBaron; etc' etc; etc;, find a following who will believe whatever they are being fed.

No doubt, there are a considerable number who fell for and believed that the "reverse image" autopsy photograph showed an

exit wound to the rear of the head, and although the photo has now been corrected and explained, not unlike the other BS, it will not doubt surface again at some point and time in the future.

With the great levels of research such as the "reverse image" photo, as well as the new photo's being posted on this topic; and such as the "blood spatter" topic, all of which has no basis in any fact, then it will be little wonder that this forum will no doubt soon follow in the footsteps of all of the other JFK assassination related sights.

Personally, I would expect more from some forum which touts itself as the "Education Forum".

How about I send in some of the "documented" UFO photo's and thereafter claim that it was all the work of an "Alien Entity"!

Perhaps John Simkin, who is also on the "offender" list, could, not unlike the McAdams forums, start an alternative forum entitled something like"

"I Dreamed This BS up Forum" and would like to post it, and I truly have neither the time, nor possess the ability to conduct actual research":

Were it not for that limited group of persons who are actually attempting to understand the facts of the assassination, and will never have the opportunity to discuss many issues with those who actually had first hand knowledge, then not unlike I did many years ago, that information in my possession would have remained locked away and those who chase mythological beings, etc; could continue to remain "uneducated" and thusly chase whatever they desire.

Personally, even in his elderly years, I have no doubts that Arlen Specter still enjoys a laugh or two.

The internet has given the ability to reach those "extremely few" sensible searchers for the factual truths who are not so stupid that they fall for and believe anything which anyone claims and/or states on the subject matter.

Unfortunately, this same internet has also given the ability to massively spread complete BS, on which many will continue to feed, wallow, and repeat, as if it were actually "good BS"!

For those who have not caught on, BS remains BS!. One can put catsup/ketchup; steak sauce; or whatever one it, wrap it in a beautiful box with ribbons, etc; yet, it will remain BS.

That one may state that they prefer the taste of it does not change the reality. It is BS!

Failure to recognize the taste and/or smell of BS has no bearing on the fact that it is BS.

It merely means that one does not have the ability to recognized BS.

[Frank Agbat]

So -- back to the second head shot (3rd overall) which you have called the truly magic shot (a snap shot):

Z313 = shot #2.

Shot #3 occurs down by Altgens (near the painted section of the curb, Z+95). This is somewhere around Z350?

I ask because your theory is well-researched and plausible in any number of ways -- except for the disturbing lack of corroborating photographic evidence.

[Bill Miller]

The question of headshots originating from the picket fence is further demonstarted by the elimination of Midget man (aka Hatman) as dud.

One other possibility remains: Duncan man at 33 feet from the corner.

I won't waste time going back and forth with a propagandist, but I will take a moment to expose why I say what I do. I have lost count as to how many times I have pointed out that Moorman took her photo 4/18s of a second after JFK's head exploded. In fact, the President's head actually exploded between the exposure of Z312 and Z313. The distance that Jackie traveled while getting up out of her seat in four film frames was used as an illustration as to how far someone could move in that brief time span.

Then it was pointed out that Moorman was looking uphill when the Hat Man location is viewed. It doesn't take a genius to test just how far someone would only need to shift their body for the top of their head to sink down below the top of the fence-line. A beginning art class when addressing 'perspective and how it works' would apply to this simple observation and yet someone like yourself ignores it and continues talking like a fool by referring to someone as a midget. Trolls cannot be shamed for their agenda goes beyond shame, but they can be exposed like a cock-roach seen against a white rug when the light comes on.

As far as a shot being fired from there ... we can listen to someone like yourself who has stood before this forum and knowingly posted false information as per the claim made that Duncan had been consulting with Mack and Groden or they can play this link and hear what Holland said about a shot coming from the Hat Man location. Its then up to each person to decide where the truth falls.

One more thing ... the "X" on the street is not accurate. Groden made a mistake when he first drew it there, but as Robert would say ... it was only meant to be a general reference point for where JFK was when killed.

[Miles Scull]

A beginning art class when addressing 'perspective and how it works' would apply to this simple observation and yet someone like yourself ignores it and continues talking like a fool by referring to someone as a midget. Trolls cannot be shamed for their agenda goes beyond shame, but they can be exposed like a cock-roach seen against a white rug when the light comes on.

A beginning art class when addressing 'perspective and how it works' would apply to this simple observation and yet someone like yourself ignores it and continues talking like a fool by referring to someone as a midget. Trolls cannot be shamed for their agenda goes beyond shame, but they can be exposed like a cock-roach seen against a white rug when the light comes on. - MILLER

Well, what can I say? BM (Bill Miller) calls me a "fool" & a "cockroach."

BM protests too much?

Why?

It would seem that since BM stated that as a sniper that he would have placed & rested his rifle between the picket fence slat spear points & since that idea has been shown to be an obvious nonsense, it would seem that BM is not happy with me.

Sorry.

In defense I can only assert the plausibility of a head shot from 33 feet from the corner of the fence by showing that a sniper would never have rested his rifle on anything:

The "resting the barrel theory" is a guess & a bad one. The experienced sniper, cautiously & on fundamental operating procedure grounds, holding his rifle free from contact with any limiting obstructions is the reality. Remember, the sniper does not know how the car & the target within the car will move. He must give himself optimum chances to succeed. The sniper is not an amateur. - SCULL

Miller says: "I disagree... Anyone behind and/or in front of the limo had virtually a motionless target to hit IMO."

What?

Again, to repeat, you miss the point. The point is simple. The movement of the limo as it actually did occur is irrelevant & immaterial to the question of how a sniper at hatman's locus would have handled his rifle. To repeat, the sniper did not know & could not have known in advance how the limo would move & how the target within the limo would move. Therefore, the sniper allows for & prepares for any & every possibility of movement. Resting the rifle barrel on anything (the fence) is a nonsense. More dogs not hunting. - SCULL

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Mar 31 2007, 02:05 AM

[Don Bailey]

Thomas, I’m not buying your theory with the reversal of the original photo based on video interviews from the doctors, interns, witnesses and nurses at Parkland. Dr. Kenneth Salyer and Dr. Red Duke can prove you wrong… these living doctors would love to see your reversed photograph.

In your Alice Wonderland reversal of the photo you have a bullet entrance hole that becomes an bullet exit hole from a split FMJ bullet. Your half of magic bullet theory exit to the head does not make sense to me.

Don

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Thomas, I’m not buying your theory with the reversal of the original photo based on video interviews from the doctors, interns, witnesses and nurses at Parkland. Dr. Kenneth Salyer and Dr. Red Duke can prove you wrong… these living doctors would love to see your reversed photograph.

In your Alice Wonderland reversal of the photo you have a bullet entrance hole that becomes an bullet exit hole from a split FMJ bullet. Your half of magic bullet theory exit to the head does not make sense to me.

Don

Thomas, I’m not buying your theory

And, I am not selling it! It was free, and you can either research it and find the error of your research, or continue to dig yourself deeper into fantasyland.

The CORRECT answer was posted here in order that hopefully, some would not fall into the same rabbit hole and become as lost as are you.

Your half of magic bullet theory exit to the head does not make sense to me.

Since you were not even aware that you were attempting to resolve issues by looking at some photo, which happens to be a "reverse image", then I am hardly suprised that none of anything makes any sense to you.

P.S. Personally, I did not expect you to accept it, however, you interjected it here as if it had some basis in fact, and I therefore informed everyone what your photo truly represents, as well as where they could find the HSCA discussions regarding that specific piece of bone which contains the EXIT wound of the parietal/parietal frontal area of JFK's skull.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So -- back to the second head shot (3rd overall) which you have called the truly magic shot (a snap shot):

Z313 = shot #2.

Shot #3 occurs down by Altgens (near the painted section of the curb, Z+95). This is somewhere around Z350?

I ask because your theory is well-researched and plausible in any number of ways -- except for the disturbing lack of corroborating photographic evidence.

And, although the SS appears to have been able to resolve this issue with their quality first generation copy of the film, it would appear that we will never be allowed the privilidge of even getting to see that.

Pathologically and forensically, the FBI knew that in order for JFK to have been hit in the edge of the hairline, for the bullet to tunnel "upwards", striking the skull at a point which was higher (on the person) than the scalp entrance, and thereafter passing through the head to exit to the front, that JFK's head had to be in a completely downward position.

One can hide/mask/alter the film. One can not do so with the pathological evidence.

Thusly, it would appear that this is why JEH & Company, after they assumed full responsibility, attempted to move the Z313 impact and left the Altgens/4+95 impact in place.

The Warren Commission/aka Specter & Company /aka "Shyster" Lawyer & Company, apparantly had considerable more experience in dealing with witnesses and manipulation of actual evidence.

If one will recall, we originally only saw up to Z334 as the WC informed us that there was nothing of any importance past that point.

It was not until many years later that we actually saw portions of the film which covered the vicinity of the last shot/aka that portion of the film down in front of James Altgens.

There exists only two actual forms of proof of the two shots to JFK's head.

1. The pathological information

2. Witness information

Were it not for everyone looking at the Z-film (as well as reverse image photo's I might add) and attempting to resolve something in this manner, then research would have long ago concentrated on that information which has always been recognized and accepted as the determining factor in resolution of such events.

Forget the Z-film. It is of little benefit other than telling us exactly where James Altgens; Malcolm Summers; and "down by the steps" actually was.

And even then, it was not of great benefit until the survey charts which demonstrated the second yellow curb stripe were provided.

Lastly, the third shot as well as the actual bullet, which went on to strike JBC, has much to do with:

"There Is No Magic"

"However, Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear"

(Tom Purvis)

P.S. The 5-inch (+/-) scar on JBC's left lower leg, other than JBC's statement, has no basis in fact that it was created by encounter with a barbed wire fence when he was a child.

[Bill Miller]

Well, what can I say? BM (Bill Miller) calls me a "fool" & a "cockroach."

It has long since been established that referring to people as 'midgets' is politically incorrect language. I suggest that only a fool would continue doing so once being made aware of this. As far as the 'cock-roach' remark ... anyone but a fool would know that it was a metaphor. What is a 'metaphor' you ask?

METAPHOR: * a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity

Just as you purposely misled this forum in saying that Duncan had been consulting with Groden and Mack, you have attempted to do the same here once again. The wording of the phrase to anyone but a fool would know that I referenced your intentions as standing out like a cock-roach against a white rug. And had I said that you stand out like a 'sore thumb' ... would you also foolishly be whining that I called you a thumb? Had I said that you stand out like a black dot painted onto a white canvas ... would you then be whining that Miller has called you a 'block dot'? Now I ask you ... who whines/protest too much???

It would seem that since BM stated that as a sniper that he would have placed & rested his rifle between the picket fence slat spear points & since that idea has been shown to be an obvious nonsense, it would seem that BM is not happy with me.

Resting a rifle on a fence has nothing to do with not being happy with you. I am not happy with you for reasons that the forum rules will not permit me to relay.

In defense I can only assert the plausibility of a head shot from 33 feet from the corner of the fence by showing that a sniper would never have rested his rifle on anything:

What you are doing is only speculating as I did. Numerous witnesses heard a shot from that location at the moment that the president was killed and just as many saw the smoke drift out from under the trees. Sam Holland took Mark Lane to that location, thus it appears that more likely a shot was indeed fired from the Hat Man spot. Your position is that Hat Man is too short to see over the fence, but that is an error in both perspective and the timing of when Moorman took her photo in relation to the shot actually being fired IMO.

If we look at this from the other direction ... Hat Man is the only figure seen above the fence line. Your position is that he could not have stepped back or shifted his weight so to have his head fall below the fence line from the "uphill" field of view that Moorman had to that location. If what you say is accurate, then there was no shot fired from that location, nor smoke from a shot coming through the trees and I am not buying that position. In fact, I believe it was you (Miles) who posted that modern guns didn't emit smoke when discharged, which that too was a misleading statement. The test firings done for the HSCA showed that smoke can be discharged from a 'modern day rifle'.

So my position is that you must not only be able to make a claim, but it must also stand up to the evidence before us, which I found that it doesn't.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Also:

Thanks ... I rest my case!!!

[Bill Miller]

Tom,

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!

[Miles Scull]

Tom,Thanks!

What you are doing is only speculating as I did. - Miller in post # 146 on this tread.

W H A T ??

Are you now trying to wiggle out of your stated position because it is shown to be patently absurd on the logic?

You stated on this forum:

I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

Or, do you still subscribe to this position?

If so, please explain to the Forum.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

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!

Is the statement Al made accurate????

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