The "Headshots"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Therein appears to lie your major problem! You have little or no concept as to what constitutes evidence of any factual worth, as well as how to evaluate same when it is absolutely provided to you.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on May 24, 1964?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas?

Mr. GAUTHIER. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made?

Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today?

Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that?

Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.

Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.

Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

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

Now, we have of course had considerable discussions surrounding CE884 (the tabulation of Z-frame numbers) and the fact that the original does not match the “changed” numbers found within the WC submitted documents.

However, I long ago provided additional information relative to another item of some noteworthiness which can be found on the original survey and which is not found on Gauthier’s “exact duplication”/aka CE 883 and the purported original CE882.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464a.htm

So, Bill!

It would appear that even when someone points you to the correct bus, you still can not manage to locate it.

As I long ago stated, neither CE882 nor CE883 constitutes Mr. West’s “original” survey.

And:

3. According to FBI Agent Shaneyfelt Exhibit 26, (unsigned FBI report dated 17 July, 1964) the first attempt to locate this "smear" occurred on July 15, 1964, at which no nick anywhere on the curbing could be located, and neither could any indication of any "smear" be found.**

&

2. That section of concrete curbing which was removed and ultimately sent to the FBI Laboratory for examination, was not removed until August 5, 1964.

Are lies perpetrated by JEH & company!

And, had you demonstrated the ability to question evidence and resolve answers to questions, you would have known that this documented testimony is a lie as I long ago provided that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that it was a lie.

That information lies within the portion of Mr. West's original survey, which clearly demonstrates that when the Warren Commission comleted it's assassination re-enactment on May 24, 1964, not only was the section of the concrete curb already removed, but the WC had Mr. West survey in the location of this removed curb.

All of which clearly demonstrates that virtually everything that Shaneyfelt and Hoover have stated in regards to the dates of removal, etc; are a complete lie.

And Bill, you were openly provided with this information, which you could have, had you had the research ability, provided to the public.

Instead, ole "no-nothing" Tom again has to openly demonstrate to you another of the areas in which Hoover & Company pulled the wool over your eyes, and you did not even know enough to recognize it when openly presented for evaluation.

All of which continues to demonstrate that you know nothing as to how Specter; Hoover; & Company, pulled a complete sack over your head.

Exactly why do you think that I sometimes go out of my way to "point" to the correct bus? Yet, those such as yourself nevertheless continue to get on the wrong one going in the wrong direction.

[Bill Miller]

Can't prove it..... Nor can you confirm the extant Zapruder film is legit, just a lot of Lone Nut Warren Commission support'in, hop'in and a pray'in.... Healthy paranoia is not only wonderful for the soul but....

In short son, the entire film and photo record concerning Dealey Plaza events on Nov 22nd 1963 is questioned... You need the varsity to dig out of this hole, and that's what we're waiting for... in the meantime, carry on.

I am curious as to who is 'we'? .... Are you talking about the other voices you hear in your head or are these totally different personalities of yours?

I am not qualified to examine the Zapruder film to see if it is the camera original, and neither are you, so we can't prove anything. However, Rolland Zavada is extremely qualified to tell us, as well as probably Groden for both know Kodachrome II film very well. It is an expert like Zavada, who is the foremost leading expert on Kodachrome II film in the world, who has examined the said camera original of the Zapruder film and claimed it to be the real deal. Groden also reached the same conclusion. That's two who I know have confirmed it. If you have names of those who examined it and claimed it to not be the camera original, then please post what you know.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

3. According to FBI Agent Shaneyfelt Exhibit 26, (unsigned FBI report dated 17 July, 1964) the first attempt to locate this "smear" occurred on July 15, 1964, at which no nick anywhere on the curbing could be located, and neither could any indication of any "smear" be found.**

&

2. That section of concrete curbing which was removed and ultimately sent to the FBI Laboratory for examination, was not removed until August 5, 1964.

Are lies perpetrated by JEH & company!

And, had you demonstrated the ability to question evidence and resolve answers to questions, you would have known that this documented testimony is a lie as I long ago provided that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that it was a lie.

Yes, Tom ... you have provided everything imaginable except for what I asked. I will put forth a point that Harold Weisberg made some time ago. Harold saw that there was no mark reported on the curb by the Feds, but Weisberg points out that a photo of the nick on the curb was taken the afternoon of the assassination, thus it has to be there. That when re-checked ... the place in question on the curb-stone was in fact visible, except someone had attempted to patch over the nick. All I wanted to know from you was if you had an reasonable explanation as to why someone took the time and trouble to hide the nick in the curb-stone?

[Miles Scull]

Yes, Tom ...

Two shooters.

Shot from rear forces head forward.

Shot from front forces head backward:

Shot from rear:

Then, shot from front:

[Bill Miller]

Two shooters.

Shot from rear forces head forward.

Shot from front forces head backward:

Shot from rear:

Then, shot from front:

Such a claim is not supported by the photographic evidence. The Zapruder and Nix film shows just one blast to the head which resulted in the debris being captured on film between Z312 and Z313. What Sherry pointed out to me was that there were no other explosions seen on film in the following assassination frames. When I asked Sherry if there would have been a second impact to the head, Sherry replied that there would have been a second explosion like that seen in Z313, if not more of an explosion, as the second bullet would have had less resistance in impacting the brain matter.

The head rocking forward for one frame and then backwards can be accounted for by a bullet hitting the top front half of the already bowed head. This would account for the shoulders being driven back at the same instant the head rocks forward. This would also fall in line with there being no second explosion of debris.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Two shooters.

Shot from rear forces head forward.

Shot from front forces head backward:

Shot from rear:

Then, shot from front:

Such a claim is not supported by the photographic evidence. The Zapruder and Nix film shows just one blast to the head which resulted in the debris being captured on film between Z312 and Z313. What Sherry pointed out to me was that there were no other explosions seen on film in the following assassination frames. When I asked Sherry if there would have been a second impact to the head, Sherry replied that there would have been a second explosion like that seen in Z313, if not more of an explosion, as the second bullet would have had less resistance in impacting the brain matter.

The head rocking forward for one frame and then backwards can be accounted for by a bullet hitting the top front half of the already bowed head. This would account for the shoulders being driven back at the same instant the head rocks forward. This would also fall in line with there being no second explosion of debris.

Bill Miller

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

[Bill Miller]

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

Oh please tell us all you know about the impact on a head of an under-charged round ... I hope its interesting enough to pass along to someone who is an expert in these things.

Bill Miller

[Lee Forman]

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

Oh please tell us all you know about the impact on a head of an under-charged round ... I hope its interesting enough to pass along to someone who is an expert in these things.

Bill Miller

Experts told me no such animal in this case as under-charged rounds. Absolute nonsense. Shame we're minus Ritchson. But always a mistake to follow the lead of anyone 'smart' enough to make absolutes out of allegedly studied 'blood spatter' in a tainted film. That nonsense must end. However, one Doctor I consulted with made it clear that an initial impact to the skull would have built up the incredible amount of pressures inside the skull which would have resulted in an initial explosion [aka lasagna], followed simply by a path of least resistance to any follow on shot.

Tom plays cat and mouse but won't be pinned down when we can see he is clearly referring to a film which would have contained more frames than a surprising 18.3fps. Get the $16M back, that's my opinion.

- lee

[Thomas H. Purvis]

3. According to FBI Agent Shaneyfelt Exhibit 26, (unsigned FBI report dated 17 July, 1964) the first attempt to locate this "smear" occurred on July 15, 1964, at which no nick anywhere on the curbing could be located, and neither could any indication of any "smear" be found.**

&

2. That section of concrete curbing which was removed and ultimately sent to the FBI Laboratory for examination, was not removed until August 5, 1964.

Are lies perpetrated by JEH & company!

And, had you demonstrated the ability to question evidence and resolve answers to questions, you would have known that this documented testimony is a lie as I long ago provided that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that it was a lie.

Yes, Tom ... you have provided everything imaginable except for what I asked. I will put forth a point that Harold Weisberg made some time ago. Harold saw that there was no mark reported on the curb by the Feds, but Weisberg points out that a photo of the nick on the curb was taken the afternoon of the assassination, thus it has to be there. That when re-checked ... the place in question on the curb-stone was in fact visible, except someone had attempted to patch over the nick. All I wanted to know from you was if you had an reasonable explanation as to why someone took the time and trouble to hide the nick in the curb-stone?

When you come to a full understanding of the english language, then perhaps you just may get your answer.

THERE NEVER WAS A "NICK" IN THE CURB!

There was a Smear which appeared to have been caused by lead.

You as well as any number of others can keep calling it a "NICK" all that you want to for all tht I care if that is what rings your bells. That will however, never make it a "NICK".

And, if you wish to continue to operate on the "hearsay" statements of those such as Harlold Weisberg, then also please be my guest.

The photographs of the smear were, as reported, taken on November 23 by Tom Dilliard and James Underwood.

As indicated by the WC Survey Plat, that area of the curb which contained the "smear" had been removed by May 24th, 1964.

James Tague was not questioned until July of 1964, and even then, his questioning was not unlike that of James Altgens and other "downrange" witnesses, and was done so only after the WC had basically completed their investigation and Tague's testimony (not unlike Altgens & others) would not be heard by those members of the WC who were not on the "in" and thus associate that this testimony that Z313 WAS NOT the final shot fired.

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

The testimony of James Thomas Tague was taken at 8:15 p.m., on July 23, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?

Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.

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

Had anyone with any amount of reasoning ability sat and read the statements of James Tague; James ALtgens & Emmett Hudson, knowing where these persons were actually located, then the evidence that the Z313 impact was the second shot fired can not be overlooked.

And, had you ever bothered to actually conduct true research, then you too would at least know a little in regards to the facts of the assassination and thusly not have to rely on the highly dubious information upon which you apparantly base your supposed researh.

So, just keep right on believing whoever you so desire. However, please cease to ask me to explain each and every BS theory that your research staff hand feeds to you and which you quite apparantlly believe.

John McAdams is in the "debunking" business, and does it quite well.

As to me, I am generally in the "fact presentation " aspects of the assassination. And, since you apparantly know so little of this aspect, then perhaps you should stick with the movie "JFK" and your other highly reliable sources for the next 25 years.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

Oh please tell us all you know about the impact on a head of an under-charged round ... I hope its interesting enough to pass along to someone who is an expert in these things.

Bill Miller

Experts told me no such animal in this case as under-charged rounds. Absolute nonsense. Shame we're minus Ritchson. But always a mistake to follow the lead of anyone 'smart' enough to make absolutes out of allegedly studied 'blood spatter' in a tainted film. That nonsense must end. However, one Doctor I consulted with made it clear that an initial impact to the skull would have built up the incredible amount of pressures inside the skull which would have resulted in an initial explosion [aka lasagna], followed simply by a path of least resistance to any follow on shot.

Tom plays cat and mouse but won't be pinned down when we can see he is clearly referring to a film which would have contained more frames than a surprising 18.3fps. Get the $16M back, that's my opinion.

- lee

However, one Doctor I consulted with made it clear that an initial impact to the skull would have built up the incredible amount of pressures inside the skull which would have resulted in an initial explosion [aka lasagna], followed simply by a path of least resistance to any follow on shot.

Too bad that others have not followed your lead in asking the correct questions of the correctly qualified persons.

Tom plays cat and mouse but won't be pinned down when we can see he is clearly referring to a film which would have contained more frames than a surprising 18.3fps. Get the $16M back, that's my opinion.

Actually! Tom is, at various times and stages, either "baiting a trap"; actually providing pertinent information; and/or providing sufficient information that if followed through upon, just may reveal answers to long held questions.

Such as the "Nick on the Curb" information which was provided long ago, yet no one seemed to have ever caught on that there was an apparant discrepancy if the WC Survey Plat of May 24, 1964 demonstrated that the section of curb had been removed, yet JEH little story stated that this section of curb was not removed until August, 1964.

And, I am still of the opinion that the "Rising/Running" man has not revealed all that he knows!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Two shooters.

Shot from rear forces head forward.

Shot from front forces head backward:

Shot from rear:

Then, shot from front:

Such a claim is not supported by the photographic evidence. The Zapruder and Nix film shows just one blast to the head which resulted in the debris being captured on film between Z312 and Z313. What Sherry pointed out to me was that there were no other explosions seen on film in the following assassination frames. When I asked Sherry if there would have been a second impact to the head, Sherry replied that there would have been a second explosion like that seen in Z313, if not more of an explosion, as the second bullet would have had less resistance in impacting the brain matter.

The head rocking forward for one frame and then backwards can be accounted for by a bullet hitting the top front half of the already bowed head. This would account for the shoulders being driven back at the same instant the head rocks forward. This would also fall in line with there being no second explosion of debris.

Bill Miller

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

My "judgement", based on evaluation of a considerable quantity of the known evidence, informs me that it would be, not unlike a search for multiple assassins, a complete waste of time in even giving consideration to "undercharged rounds".

Especially when there is a quite simple explanation for the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, as created by the impact of three bullets.

It is those who either could not, or else never bothered to verify their questions, who had to come up with all of the mythological creatures to explain what is quite simply stated as the pathological damage created by the impact of three shots to JFK.

One to the back, and two additional shots to the head.

P.S. The overall majority of whom also believed that Z313 was the last shot fired.

In fact, until just recently, it was "Tom all alone" out on that limb as well!

[Miles Scull]

Two shooters.

Shot from rear forces head forward.

Shot from front forces head backward:

Shot from rear:

Then, shot from front:

Such a claim is not supported by the photographic evidence. The Zapruder and Nix film shows just one blast to the head which resulted in the debris being captured on film between Z312 and Z313. What Sherry pointed out to me was that there were no other explosions seen on film in the following assassination frames. When I asked Sherry if there would have been a second impact to the head, Sherry replied that there would have been a second explosion like that seen in Z313, if not more of an explosion, as the second bullet would have had less resistance in impacting the brain matter.

The head rocking forward for one frame and then backwards can be accounted for by a bullet hitting the top front half of the already bowed head. This would account for the shoulders being driven back at the same instant the head rocks forward. This would also fall in line with there being no second explosion of debris.

Bill Miller

Not at all.

For starters, for example, you completely fail to consider undercharged rounds.

Always rely on your own judgement, not that of others, such as Sherry or Groden.

My "judgement", based on evaluation of a considerable quantity of the known evidence, informs me that it would be, not unlike a search for multiple assassins, a complete waste of time in even giving consideration to "undercharged rounds".

Especially when there is a quite simple explanation for the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, as created by the impact of three bullets.

It is those who either could not, or else never bothered to verify their questions, who had to come up with all of the mythological creatures to explain what is quite simply stated as the pathological damage created by the impact of three shots to JFK.

One to the back, and two additional shots to the head.

P.S. The overall majority of whom also believed that Z313 was the last shot fired.

In fact, until just recently, it was "Tom all alone" out on that limb as well!

Depending on "so-called" experts (here "experts" is used in the general, non-specific sense) & not relying on your own common sense can & will lead to ultimately abandoning common sense.

This is true in this case.

For example, suppose there was an actual (and there is) team participant witness who reported that he & his associates had prepared personally "undercharged" rounds for this specific occasion.

This witness' testimony would not be an "experts" hearsay, but would be instead real fact.

There's a massive difference.

Point two, who said that a rear shot hit the head?

Jumping to assumptions is also a sign of reliance on "so-called experts" & of the consequent confusion stemming therefrom.

Edit: grammar

Edited March 20, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Too bad that others have not followed your lead in asking the correct questions of the correctly qualified persons.

Oh but we have, Tom ... its just that you ignore what they say when it doesn't fit the things you post.

[Bill Miller]

For example, suppose there was an actual (and there is) team participant witness who reported that he & his associates had prepared personally "undercharged" rounds for this specific occasion.

So we are supposing again, hey! I think supposing is what got you to erroneously thinking that Bowers could see people standing on the knoll steps or that Sam Holland ran off the underpass within the first 20 seconds following the shooting. But before you get to supposing much further, lets supposed that you know which it is that makes a bigger more noticeable impact on the head ... a high speed moving bullet or a slow (under-charged) moving bullet??? I would think this would be important in a supposed inquiry.

Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Too bad that others have not followed your lead in asking the correct questions of the correctly qualified persons.

Oh but we have, Tom ... its just that you ignore what they say when it doesn't fit the things you post.

Yep!

For whatever reason, I have this inherent trait that I generally only ask questions of those who have the actual training and expertise to give properly evaluated and reasoned answers.

Always been kind of strange in that matter.

If I wanted more "junk" answers, I would just go to some bar, or else show up in Dealy Plaza on any given November 22.