The "Headshots"

[Don Bailey]

Now, just in order that we ALL may establish a few research parameters:

1. Did you derive this conclusion through your own independent research of the facts?

Yes

2. Did you derive this conclusion because, not unlike the "Blood Spatter" conversations, someone else told you and you just took their word for it?

No, I studied this photograph and others to draw my own conclusion. This subject matter has never been discussed with anyone.

3. Did you derive this conclusion by looking at the photo, and just making it up for yourself without any verification as to what is represented in the photograph?

Looking? No, Studying? Yes... I've studied this photograph for several years before I came to this conclusion; I've also studied other copies of this photograph.

4. Other? (fill in the blank):

Bullet entrance holes typically have very even margins. The rear bullet entrance hole has a groove in the bone that shows the angle of the shot. A fragmenting bullet was used. Fragmented bullets will typically grab the material of an object as it passes through causing the material to be frayed outward.

The temple bullet entrance hole was the second shot to the head and left a small groove in the rear of the skull... IMO, the Harper fragment also has a small groove in the skull where the bullet past through... match up the groove in the Harper fragment with the groove in the rear of the skull and The Harper fragment fits into place on the skull.

Don

[Thomas H. Purvis]

'Don Bailey' post='141358' date='Mar 23 2008, 09:04 AM']The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

The first shot to the rear followed by a shot to the right temple.

OK!

Now, just in order that we ALL may establish a few research parameters:

1. Did you derive this conclusion through your own independent research of the facts?

2. Did you derive this conclusion because, not unlike the "Blood Spatter" conversations, someone else told you and you just took their word for it?

3. Did you derive this conclusion by looking at the photo, and just making it up for yourself without any verification as to what is represented in the photograph?

4. Other? (fill in the blank):_________________________________________________________________________

Provided that you are willing to provide an answer, that is not reversible, then we just might proceed onward and answer a few pertinent questions related to your provided autopsy photogtraph.

As, it holds the answers to many questions!

I think is used the same method as you do, Tom.

Odd!

I was thinking the same in regards to your work, as well as how you readily accept anything which someone else states and which is too complicated for you to fully grasp.

(2 + 2)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now, just in order that we ALL may establish a few research parameters:

1. Did you derive this conclusion through your own independent research of the facts?

Yes

2. Did you derive this conclusion because, not unlike the "Blood Spatter" conversations, someone else told you and you just took their word for it?

No, I studied this photograph and others to draw my own conclusion. This subject matter has never been discussed with anyone.

3. Did you derive this conclusion by looking at the photo, and just making it up for yourself without any verification as to what is represented in the photograph?

Looking? No, Studying? Yes... I've studied this photograph for several years before I came to this conclusion; I've also studied other copies of this photograph.

4. Other? (fill in the blank):

Bullet entrance holes typically have very even margins. The rear bullet entrance hole has a groove in the bone that shows the angle of the shot. A fragmenting bullet was used. Fragmented bullets will typically grab the material of an object as it passes through causing the material to be frayed outward.

The temple bullet entrance hole was the second shot to the head and left a small groove in the rear of the skull... IMO, the Harper fragment also has a small groove in the skull where the bullet past through... match up the groove in the Harper fragment with the groove in the rear of the skull and The Harper fragment fits into place on the skull.

Don

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

Your "first clue" that just perhaps this was an incorrect conclusion would have come had you read Dr. Humes handwritten notes as well as reviewed Dr. Boswell's drawing, which demonstrated that a large portion of the parietal bone, which extended down into the occipital bone at the rear of the head, was missing.

Therefore, your "Path of the bullet Rear Entrance" happens to be in a section of bone which was not present (assuming you mean for that area to be the rear of the skull.

[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?

[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.

[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.

That area which you refer to as being the "Right Temple Entrance", (enlarged below), is in fact the rear scalp of JFK in the cowlick area, and is also in fact the cowlick entry through the scalp, with the light in the background shining through the scalp puncture.

Down at the bottom right, one can see the sharp/jagged edge of the remaining skull bone where that area of skull bone which encompassed the cowlick entry is missing.

[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.

That area which you refer to as being the "Right Temple Entrance", (enlarged below), is in fact the rear scalp of JFK in the cowlick area, and is also in fact the cowlick entry through the scalp, with the light in the background shining through the scalp puncture.

Down at the bottom right, one can see the sharp/jagged edge of the remaining skull bone where that area of skull bone which encompassed the cowlick entry is missing.

That portion of the photo to which you refer (included below) as being "Path of the Bullet Rear Entrance", happens to be the forward area of JFK's skull, which encompassed a portion of the parietal as well as frontal bone which was blown out by those fragments of the bullet which exited FORWARD.

The "beveling" can even be observed within the outer table of the skull.

Now, though not "lastly", had you also taken the time to review the discussions of this photo between Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; and the HSCA panel, then you would have known

And, although I have no intention of conducting research for everyone who does not understand the aspects of the JFK autopsy and evidence, this photo, along with the aspects of the FRONTAL EXIT WOUND created by a bullet fragment which traversed from the rear, FORWARD, is thoroughtly discussed within the HSCA testimonies of Dr. Humes & Boswell.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now!

In event that one will take that area of skull (from the photograph) which contains the EXIT wound created by the forward moving fragments, and thereafter compare same with the anterior/posterior X-ray, then they will find a piece of the puzzle, as well as a piece of the puzzle which fits in it's appropriate position.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Although I have no doubts that Bill Miller, with all of his fantastic reserch of the subject matter, was literally "foaming at the bit" (or mouth) to get to explain all of this to you, (probably could not find his research notes and materials), I hope this is some benefit in correcting your mis-interpretation of the photographs on which your premis is based.

1. The autopsy X-ray's were taken, and that portion of bone which contains the fragment EXIT wound

(complete with beveling of outer table of skull) was not present, as it had not been brought into the autopsy room yet.

2. At a later stage of the autopsy, after the brain had been removed (as is quite clear and obvious in the autopsy photo) this piece of parietal/parietal-frontal bone was brought into the autopsy room.

3. Dr. Humes & Dr. Boswell re-inserted this portion of skull back into it's place, and thusly had at least a portion of the previously reported "missing" area of the skull which they reported upon initial examination, and of which Dr. Boswell made the drawing of.

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)

*P.S. In event that Bill Miller was not just as of yet prepared to explain this to you, then no doubt our "cognitively impaired" expert was about to do so, as I observed that he is also "lurking" around.

[Miles Scull]

Now!

In event that one will take that area of skull (from the photograph) which contains the EXIT wound created by the forward moving fragments, and thereafter compare same with the anterior/posterior X-ray, then they will find a piece of the puzzle, as well as a piece of the puzzle which fits in it's appropriate position.

This shows not an impulse forward from rear forces, but a deformation contracting the head shape from a shot from the right front:

Therefore, this shows a shot from the right front:

Edit: pic spacing

Edited March 24, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now!

In event that one will take that area of skull (from the photograph) which contains the EXIT wound created by the forward moving fragments, and thereafter compare same with the anterior/posterior X-ray, then they will find a piece of the puzzle, as well as a piece of the puzzle which fits in it's appropriate position.

This shows not an impulse forward from rear forces, but a deformation contracting the head shape from a shot from the right front:

Therefore, this shows a shot from the right front:

Edit: pic spacing

This shows not an impulse forward from rear forces, but a deformation contracting the head shape from a shot from the right front:

Actually!

This shows a couple of frames from the Z-film in which anyone with a fertile imagination can thereafter make up whatever suits their fancy as to what is seen.

Thereafter, one can go outside and look at clouds and conceiveably see butterflies and sailing ships, if that is what they believe that they see.

Anone for a UFO?

Miles! Perhaps you, Bill Miller, and the "blood spatter" expert should get together as you appear to be so close to solving this issue by looking at the Z-film.

As to me, guess that I will merely stick with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence which can be established, and of which there exists considerable medical examination from the autopsy to support..

[Miles Scull]

Now!

In event that one will take that area of skull (from the photograph) which contains the EXIT wound created by the forward moving fragments, and thereafter compare same with the anterior/posterior X-ray, then they will find a piece of the puzzle, as well as a piece of the puzzle which fits in it's appropriate position.

This shows not an impulse forward from rear forces, but a deformation contracting the head shape from a shot from the right front:

Therefore, this shows a shot from the right front:

Edit: pic spacing

This shows not an impulse forward from rear forces, but a deformation contracting the head shape from a shot from the right front:

Actually!

This shows a couple of frames from the Z-film in which anyone with a fertile imagination can thereafter make up whatever suits their fancy as to what is seen.

Thereafter, one can go outside and look at clouds and conceiveably see butterflies and sailing ships, if that is what they believe that they see.

Anone for a UFO?

Miles! Perhaps you, Bill Miller, and the "blood spatter" expert should get together as you appear to be so close to solving this issue by looking at the Z-film.

As to me, guess that I will merely stick with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence which can be established, and of which there exists considerable medical examination from the autopsy to support..

Oh Hi, Tom,

You on this thread too?

I do not subscribe to BM's silly nonsense or to Sherry's more respectable theories, such as they are. No way. So, do not place me in that camp, thanks.

But this is not a valid idea:

That's all.

+

[Bill Miller]

I do not subscribe to BM's silly nonsense or to Sherry's more respectable theories, such as they are. No way. So, do not place me in that camp, thanks.

I think people use to say the same thing about the silly theories concerning gravity and the earth being round, but it didn't mean they were correct ... just ignorant of the subject matter. I find it funny as all heck that when someone will take a poor degraded image and claim to see a floating cop torso - you jump right up and applaud it instead of calling it nonsense, but when someone with a resume longer than all the threads you have trolled talks about blood spatter in relation to the back spray seen coming from JFK's skull ... that you see this as nonsense.

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

Edited March 24, 2008 by Bill Miller

[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

Edited March 25, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Don Bailey]

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