Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK jacket close-up


Recommended Posts

Yes! It is a "nice" photo.

Makes one wonder exactly why none of the "great" CSI's (self-proclaimed) who also claim to have looked at the evidence have never correlated that not unlike the back wound*, the correlation of the location of the upper/collar puncture through the coat of JFK just may have some bearing on the EOP entry wound.

*(fact that the back wound measured 4mm X 7mm and the deformed base of CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0031b.htm

P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

P.P.S. Had a "comparision sample" actually been removed from the coat, then, in accordance with standard procedure, said sample would have been removed directly adjacent to the existing damage (the lower hole), and said location would have had a circle in chalk drawn around the location at which the comparison sample was removed.

P.P.P.S. And now, one knows the "Rest of the Story" as to exactly why no one was allowed to examine JFK's clothing as well as why Arlen Specter asked so many persons as to whether or not that they had either seen or examined same.

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! It is a "nice" photo.

Makes one wonder exactly why none of the "great" CSI's (self-proclaimed) who also claim to have looked at the evidence have never correlated that not unlike the back wound*, the correlation of the location of the upper/collar puncture through the coat of JFK just may have some bearing on the EOP entry wound.

*(fact that the back wound measured 4mm X 7mm and the deformed base of CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0031b.htm

P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

P.P.S. Had a "comparision sample" actually been removed from the coat, then, in accordance with standard procedure, said sample would have been removed directly adjacent to the existing damage (the lower hole), and said location would have had a circle in chalk drawn around the location at which the comparison sample was removed.

P.P.P.S. And now, one knows the "Rest of the Story" as to exactly why no one was allowed to examine JFK's clothing as well as why Arlen Specter asked so many persons as to whether or not that they had either seen or examined same.

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)

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! It is a "nice" photo.

Makes one wonder exactly why none of the "great" CSI's (self-proclaimed) who also claim to have looked at the evidence have never correlated that not unlike the back wound*, the correlation of the location of the upper/collar puncture through the coat of JFK just may have some bearing on the EOP entry wound.

*(fact that the back wound measured 4mm X 7mm and the deformed base of CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0031b.htm

P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

P.P.S. Had a "comparision sample" actually been removed from the coat, then, in accordance with standard procedure, said sample would have been removed directly adjacent to the existing damage (the lower hole), and said location would have had a circle in chalk drawn around the location at which the comparison sample was removed.

P.P.P.S. And now, one knows the "Rest of the Story" as to exactly why no one was allowed to examine JFK's clothing as well as why Arlen Specter asked so many persons as to whether or not that they had either seen or examined same.

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)

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

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)

Coat collars "raise"!

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

6.5mm Carcano bullets, when striking normally, only make extremely "small" penetrations through clothing such as coats, shirts, etc:

That the "wadcutter" style flat base of CE399 "punched" out considerable fabric from the coat as well as the shirt upon it's base-first entry into the back, should have told you something*

*It also carried this fabric down into the wound of entry into JFK's back, which happens to be a completely abnormal occurence for such a bullet.

Just perhaps you might actully try something factual and shoot a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a similar coat, and thereafter see what you get.--------Might accidentaly learn something!

P.S. You did check with Henry Heiberger (as well as all of the other FBI Agents in the Spectrographic Analysis Lab), did you not?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

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)

Coat collars "raise"!

And coat collars "fall."

JFK's jacket collar clearly fell in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

The first two images in the link above are from the Houston

St. segment of the Nix film. The first image shows JFK leaning

forward chatting with Nellie, his shirt collar not visible at the back

of his neck.

A split second later he leaned back and his jacket dropped, exposing

the shirt collar.

The third image was taken on Main St. about 2 minutes before the

shooting. Note JFK's head was turned to the right and he was waving

his right arm. Note there was a diagonal fold in the back of the jacket,

and the top of the jacket rode up into JFK's hairline.

The fourth image is Betzner #3 taken at Z186. Same posture: head

turned to the right, right arm waving. Very similar fold in the jacket.

The major difference between the Main St. photo and the Elm St.

photo is the highly visible shirt collar on Elm St.

JFK's jacket obviously dropped.

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

Very good. Custom made shirts do not move the same as

jackets. According to you, Tom, JFK's tucked-in custom made

dress shirt rode up 3.5 inches in tandem with the jacket.

You couldn't replicate this event using two hands to pull.

6.5mm Carcano bullets, when striking normally, only make extremely "small" penetrations through clothing such as coats, shirts, etc:

That the "wadcutter" style flat base of CE399 "punched" out considerable fabric from the coat as well as the shirt upon it's base-first entry into the back, should have told you something*

*It also carried this fabric down into the wound of entry into JFK's back, which happens to be a completely abnormal occurence for such a bullet.

Just perhaps you might actully try something factual and shoot a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a similar coat, and thereafter see what you get.--------Might accidentaly learn something!

P.S. You did check with Henry Heiberger (as well as all of the other FBI Agents in the Spectrographic Analysis Lab), did you not?????

Check with them for what? We can measure the bullet hole in

the jacket and we can observe the Dealey Plaza films and photos

and clearly see JFK's jacket dropping.

If you were interested in actual research, Tom, you would have

researched clothing movement and studied the photographic

evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

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)

Coat collars "raise"!

And coat collars "fall."

JFK's jacket collar clearly fell in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

The first two images in the link above are from the Houston

St. segment of the Nix film. The first image shows JFK leaning

forward chatting with Nellie, his shirt collar not visible at the back

of his neck.

A split second later he leaned back and his jacket dropped, exposing

the shirt collar.

The third image was taken on Main St. about 2 minutes before the

shooting. Note JFK's head was turned to the right and he was waving

his right arm. Note there was a diagonal fold in the back of the jacket,

and the top of the jacket rode up into JFK's hairline.

The fourth image is Betzner #3 taken at Z186. Same posture: head

turned to the right, right arm waving. Very similar fold in the jacket.

The major difference between the Main St. photo and the Elm St.

photo is the highly visible shirt collar on Elm St.

JFK's jacket obviously dropped.

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

Very good. Custom made shirts do not move the same as

jackets. According to you, Tom, JFK's tucked-in custom made

dress shirt rode up 3.5 inches in tandem with the jacket.

You couldn't replicate this event using two hands to pull.

6.5mm Carcano bullets, when striking normally, only make extremely "small" penetrations through clothing such as coats, shirts, etc:

That the "wadcutter" style flat base of CE399 "punched" out considerable fabric from the coat as well as the shirt upon it's base-first entry into the back, should have told you something*

*It also carried this fabric down into the wound of entry into JFK's back, which happens to be a completely abnormal occurence for such a bullet.

Just perhaps you might actully try something factual and shoot a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a similar coat, and thereafter see what you get.--------Might accidentaly learn something!

P.S. You did check with Henry Heiberger (as well as all of the other FBI Agents in the Spectrographic Analysis Lab), did you not?????

Check with them for what? We can measure the bullet hole in

the jacket and we can observe the Dealey Plaza films and photos

and clearly see JFK's jacket dropping.

If you were interested in actual research, Tom, you would have

researched clothing movement and studied the photographic

evidence.

Unfortunately, I was not born, nor did I ever develope the capability for X-ray Vision to determine exactly what JFK's shirt was or was not doing underneath his coat.

However, I do know enough to recognized that when one stands up in a vehicle and then sits back down with their back against leather seats, that one's shirt as well as coat can do a wide variety of things.

Irrelevant as to what you "tailor" may have informed you!

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

http://www.woopit.com/famous-quotes.html?q...s=Ben%20Johnson

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

By: William McAdoo

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

Thankfully, this forum also has some extremely intelligent persons on board who, it would appear, are at the threshold of a new learning experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I was not born, nor did I ever develope the capability for X-ray Vision to determine exactly what JFK's shirt was or was not doing underneath his coat.

That's where the "researcher" part of this equation comes in.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have about 3/4" of

available slack. JFK wore suits designed by Paul Stuart, who

"suppressed" the waists of his suits in the manner of European

men's fashion designers. This look is called Updated American

Silhouette, wherein the clothing is tailored to fit close to the torso.

But the facts of the case aside, Tom, surely you can observe the

movement of your own clothing?

When you move a little, your shirt moves a little. Your shirts don't

spontaneously leap about your body -- such a claim is an egregious

absurdity.

And you were born with enough sense to state that jacket

collars and shirt collars don't move in tandem.

And yet your "theory" requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have moved

3.5" in tandem, contrary to the nature of reality.

However, I do know enough to recognized that when one stands up in a

vehicle and then sits back down with their back against leather seats,

that one's shirt as well as coat can do a wide variety of things.

Demonstrate how custom shirts and jackets ride up 3.5" .

Replicate your claims using a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

fit to the Updated American Silhouette style.

You cannot do so, because such is contrary to the nature of reality.

Nor can you identify where JFK's jacket was elevated the 3.5"

your theory requires.

And you certainly can't reconcile this claim with the Dealey Plaza

photos and films which show the jacket dropped!

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Irrelevant as to what you "tailor" may have informed you!

Non sequitur:

Tom's theory requires JFK shirt and jacket to have elevated

3.5" in tandem.

Clothing moves.

Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 3.5" in tandem.

This is what LNers do: repeat this non sequitur exclusively and

endlessly.

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

http://www.woopit.com/famous-quotes.html?q...s=Ben%20Johnson

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

By: William McAdoo

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

This from a man determined to maintain his ignorance of either

clothing fit or what the Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows.

Thankfully, this forum also has some extremely intelligent persons on board who, it would appear, are at the threshold of a new learning experience.

And hopefully they will understand that a jacket dropping is not the

same thing as a jacket rising.

And, with luck, these folks will understand that 3/4" does not equal 3.5".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I was not born, nor did I ever develope the capability for X-ray Vision to determine exactly what JFK's shirt was or was not doing underneath his coat.

That's where the "researcher" part of this equation comes in.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have about 3/4" of

available slack. JFK wore suits designed by Paul Stuart, who

"suppressed" the waists of his suits in the manner of European

men's fashion designers. This look is called Updated American

Silhouette, wherein the clothing is tailored to fit close to the torso.

But the facts of the case aside, Tom, surely you can observe the

movement of your own clothing?

When you move a little, your shirt moves a little. Your shirts don't

spontaneously leap about your body -- such a claim is an egregious

absurdity.

And you were born with enough sense to state that jacket

collars and shirt collars don't move in tandem.

And yet your "theory" requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have moved

3.5" in tandem, contrary to the nature of reality.

However, I do know enough to recognized that when one stands up in a

vehicle and then sits back down with their back against leather seats,

that one's shirt as well as coat can do a wide variety of things.

Demonstrate how custom shirts and jackets ride up 3.5" .

Replicate your claims using a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

fit to the Updated American Silhouette style.

You cannot do so, because such is contrary to the nature of reality.

Nor can you identify where JFK's jacket was elevated the 3.5"

your theory requires.

And you certainly can't reconcile this claim with the Dealey Plaza

photos and films which show the jacket dropped!

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Irrelevant as to what you "tailor" may have informed you!

Non sequitur:

Tom's theory requires JFK shirt and jacket to have elevated

3.5" in tandem.

Clothing moves.

Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 3.5" in tandem.

This is what LNers do: repeat this non sequitur exclusively and

endlessly.

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

http://www.woopit.com/famous-quotes.html?q...s=Ben%20Johnson

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

By: William McAdoo

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

This from a man determined to maintain his ignorance of either

clothing fit or what the Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows.

Thankfully, this forum also has some extremely intelligent persons on board who, it would appear, are at the threshold of a new learning experience.

And hopefully they will understand that a jacket dropping is not the

same thing as a jacket rising.

And, with luck, these folks will understand that 3/4" does not equal 3.5".

Perhaps "these folks" would appreciate the mystical system which you utilized in order to determine the exact position of JFK's coat/coat collar down in front of James Altgens position as the EOP entry shot passed through the slightly raised collar to penetrate the coat on an oblique angle and thereafter exit to strike JFK in the lower edge of the hairline.

As for myself, I eagerly await your demonstration of the exact position of JFK's coat, and/or the "bunch" at the time of the first shot impact at/in the vicinity of Z204/206.

Along with some demonstration of the fantastical ability which you alone quite obviously possess which demonstrates exactly what the body (not the collar) of JFK's shirt was doing at any period throughout the parade.

You were going to post, for all to observe, all of your research in which one wears similar clothing in an open limosine, with the participant rising and sitting back down against the leather seats, were you not?

Along with the exact impact on the clothing which constantly raising the right arm and waving might also have!

Or, are we expected to believe all of this merely because you and/or your tailor said so?

Why not attempt to explain exactly how the "bunch" in JFK's coat originated to begin with, as it is most obviously there throughout numerous accurate photographs taken throughout the parade.

Does it "appear" and then "disappear" on command?

At exactly what point past this photo did it decide to "disappear'?

Did it too see the first shot coming and also "duck"?

Makes on wonder exactly what the actuall collar might do if one leans well forward and slightly to the left, as down in front of James Altgens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I was not born, nor did I ever develope the capability for X-ray Vision to determine exactly what JFK's shirt was or was not doing underneath his coat.

That's where the "researcher" part of this equation comes in.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have about 3/4" of

available slack. JFK wore suits designed by Paul Stuart, who

"suppressed" the waists of his suits in the manner of European

men's fashion designers. This look is called Updated American

Silhouette, wherein the clothing is tailored to fit close to the torso.

But the facts of the case aside, Tom, surely you can observe the

movement of your own clothing?

When you move a little, your shirt moves a little. Your shirts don't

spontaneously leap about your body -- such a claim is an egregious

absurdity.

And you were born with enough sense to state that jacket

collars and shirt collars don't move in tandem.

And yet your "theory" requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have moved

3.5" in tandem, contrary to the nature of reality.

However, I do know enough to recognized that when one stands up in a

vehicle and then sits back down with their back against leather seats,

that one's shirt as well as coat can do a wide variety of things.

Demonstrate how custom shirts and jackets ride up 3.5" .

Replicate your claims using a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

fit to the Updated American Silhouette style.

You cannot do so, because such is contrary to the nature of reality.

Nor can you identify where JFK's jacket was elevated the 3.5"

your theory requires.

And you certainly can't reconcile this claim with the Dealey Plaza

photos and films which show the jacket dropped!

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Irrelevant as to what you "tailor" may have informed you!

Non sequitur:

Tom's theory requires JFK shirt and jacket to have elevated

3.5" in tandem.

Clothing moves.

Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 3.5" in tandem.

This is what LNers do: repeat this non sequitur exclusively and

endlessly.

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

http://www.woopit.com/famous-quotes.html?q...s=Ben%20Johnson

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

By: William McAdoo

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

This from a man determined to maintain his ignorance of either

clothing fit or what the Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows.

Thankfully, this forum also has some extremely intelligent persons on board who, it would appear, are at the threshold of a new learning experience.

And hopefully they will understand that a jacket dropping is not the

same thing as a jacket rising.

And, with luck, these folks will understand that 3/4" does not equal 3.5".

Perhaps "these folks" would appreciate the mystical system which you utilized in order to determine the exact position of JFK's coat/coat collar down in front of James Altgens position as the EOP entry shot passed through the slightly raised collar to penetrate the coat on an oblique angle and thereafter exit to strike JFK in the lower edge of the hairline.

As for myself, I eagerly await your demonstration of the exact position of JFK's coat, and/or the "bunch" at the time of the first shot impact at/in the vicinity of Z204/206.

Along with some demonstration of the fantastical ability which you alone quite obviously possess which demonstrates exactly what the body (not the collar) of JFK's shirt was doing at any period throughout the parade.

You were going to post, for all to observe, all of your research in which one wears similar clothing in an open limosine, with the participant rising and sitting back down against the leather seats, were you not?

Along with the exact impact on the clothing which constantly raising the right arm and waving might also have!

Or, are we expected to believe all of this merely because you and/or your tailor said so?

Why not attempt to explain exactly how the "bunch" in JFK's coat originated to begin with, as it is most obviously there throughout numerous accurate photographs taken throughout the parade.

Does it "appear" and then "disappear" on command?

At exactly what point past this photo did it decide to "disappear'?

Did it too see the first shot coming and also "duck"?

Makes on wonder exactly what the actuall collar might do if one leans well forward and slightly to the left, as down in front of James Altgens.

So!

By "Command" of Cliff and/or his tailor:

"BUNCH BE GONE"!

There Cliff! Satisfied now?

Meanwhile, for those of us who continue to operate under the misguided impression that the second hole in JFK's coat, located just below the edge of the collar, and which hole is small as well as penetrates the outer coat as well as the inner liner on an oblique angle, and which hole is in direct alignment location with the EOP scalp entry into the lower edge of the hairline.

And, which second bullet hole Arlen Specter introduced into evidence through the usage of Dr. Humes, (as opposed to anyone who actually conducted any spectrographic examination of JFK's clothing,) and which second hole was stated to be where a "control" sample was taken:

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

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The articles of clothing referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 393, 394 and 395 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect.

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

(emphasis added)

Now, just perhaps Cliff can show us the "memorandum", as it has conveniently disappeared from the National Archives (if one assumes that it ever made it there to begin with), which I personally doubt.

So, let's repeat!

Absolutely no FBI Agent from the Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI Lab admits to having examined the coat worn by JFK on the day of the assassination.

Only one single FBI Agent from the Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI Lab admits to having examined any of the clothing worn by JFK on the day of the assassination. That Agent was Henry Heiberger.

Henry Heiberger absolutely denied having conducted any testing on the coat worn by JFK on the day of the assassination.

Henry Heiberger absolutely stated that FBI Laboratory Test Reports were completed on each piece of clothing that he examined, as well as for each separate test conducted on the clothing.

Henry Heiberger stated absolutely that had a comparison/control sample been taken from the coat, then said sample would have been taken directly adjacent to the existing hole, and that the sample location would have been outlined/circled in chalk for further and future identification.

Henry Heiberger stated that no comparison/control sample would have been taken up near the coat collar for some other location which was some 4 to 5 inches lower on the back of the coat, as haircream and/or makeup could affect any such sample taken from such a totally different location.

In fact, Henry Heiberger stated that he took no comparison/control sample, even when examining the hole in the back of JFK's shirt.

The hole (and surrounding area) was X-rayed, which revealed metallic residue embedded in the fabric around the edge of the hole.

Samples which contained the metallic residue were removed and tested, and found to be copper.

Since the only area of any metallic residue was around the fabric at the edge of the puncture, and since copper is not a normal element of clothing manufacture, no comparison/control samples are normally taken in such an instance.

Test records for the shirt would include the results of the X-ray as well as the final spectrographic analysis of the removed/tested sample.

All such records of tests conducted were submitted after completion of the tests.

Heiberger actually laughed when I read him that portion of Dr. Humes statement which stated the "memorandum" stated that the hole in the coat was tested.

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

So Cliff, I would guess that we can "chalk that one up" as another example of the WC/aka Specter & Company pulling the wool over your eyes as well.

Kind of like "THE SHOT THAT MISSSED" and the Altered Survey Data!

Not to even mention the "Adjusted Position"!

But, you are quite obviously "well dressed" if it is of any consolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

Completely untrue. FBI spectrographer Henry Heiberger did examine JFK's clothing. I have personally examined his report covering the analysis and held the spectrographic plates he produced in my hands at NARA.

In fact, according to what Heibereger told me, he was examining the coat and shirt as JFK's Casson passed beneath his 7th floor window at the DOJ Building.

John Hunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

Completely untrue. FBI spectrographer Henry Heiberger did examine JFK's clothing. I have personally examined his report covering the analysis and held the spectrographic plates he produced in my hands at NARA.

In fact, according to what Heibereger told me, he was examining the coat and shirt as JFK's Casson passed beneath his 7th floor window at the DOJ Building.

John Hunt

Completely untrue. FBI spectrographer Henry Heiberger did examine JFK's clothing. I have personally examined his report covering the analysis and held the spectrographic plates he produced in my hands at NARA.

Well, on what I refer to as "good authority", that being directly told to me by Henry Heiberger, he never conducted any examination of the coat worn by JFK.

It was in fact Heiberger who so informed me that had a "control"/comparison sample have been taken that it would have come from directly adjacent to the existing hole in the back, as well as the fact that he x-rayed the shirt hole, found metallic residue and thereafter removed and tested that portion removed from the shirt hole.

And, that since copper is not normally a component of manufacture in clothing as well as no other residue (other than at the hole was present in the X-ray) that no "control" sample is taken in such an instance.

I did not state that Heilberger did not examine JFK's "clothing", as Heiberger readily admitted that he examined JFK's shirt as well as the tie.

Heiberger personally informed me, and we disucssed the clothing spectrographic work on several occassions, that he conducted no testing on the COAT worn by JFK.

And in that regards, Heiberger stated that perhaps some of the other Agents from the FBI lab tested JFK's coat as well as completed the testing of the abraised area of the tie (the nick) which he had also X-rayed and found metallic residue present.

Unfortunately, no other Agent from the Spectrographic Analysis Lab claims to have conducted any testing on any of the clothing worn by JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A refresher for the record!

1. Having well prior established contact with FBI Agent Frazier in regards to CE399, I had also established contact with FBI Agent Gallagher in regards to discussions regarding the NAA work which he did at Oak Ridge.

2. Thereafter, when I got into the "clothing examination" issue, I contacted Frazier and asked where he obtained information relative to his testimony regarding clothing examination.*

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Would you refer at this time to the coat, if you please, which, may the record show, has heretofore been marked as Commission Exhibit 393.

And by referring to that coat will you describe what, if anything, you observed on the rear side of the coat?

Mr. SPECTER - Did any tests conducted on the coat disclose any metallic substance on that area of that hole?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I had a spectrographer run an analysis of a portion of the hole which accounts for its being slightly enlarged at the present time. He took a sample of cloth and made an analysis of it. I don't know actually whether I am expected to give the results of his analysis or not.

Mr. SPECTER - Yes; would you please, or let me ask you first of all, were those tests run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the regular course of its testing procedures?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; they were.

Mr. SPECTER - And have those results been made available to you through the regular recordkeeping procedures of the FBI?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

* The coat had actually been introduced into evidence during the questioning of Dr. Humes, in which some "memorandum" was included with the coat which purportedly established that the higher hole in the coat was where a "control" sample had been taken.

Being quite aware of Arlen Specter's tendency for "slight/sleight-of-hand", this little maneuever stood out quite well.

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

2. In discussion with FBI Agent Frazier, he stated that he could not recall exactly where he got the information from relative to examination of the clothing of JFK, and that he thought that the information came from FBI Agent Gallagher.

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

3. I again contacted Gallagher, who stated that he had nothing to do with examination of the clothing of JFK, and that some of the others assigned to the Spectrographic Analysis Section must have conducted these examinations. He gave me the names of Heilman and Heiberger. (there was one other whom I can not even recall from memory now, who basically spent all of his time in running samples back and forth to Oak Ridge and who also stated that he had nothing to do with clothing examination.

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

4. So, back to Frazier who was asked if he could recall either Heilman and/or Heiberger as the persons who provided him with that information relative to his WC Testimony in regards to clothing examination.

Frazier still could not recall exactly how he came by this information.

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

5. Contact with Bill Heilman, who was also involved in the NAA work and stated that he had nothing to do with analysis of the clothing of JFK.

Stated that if it was not Gallagher, then it must have been Henry Heiberger.

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

6. Contact with Henry Heiberger and multiple contacts and discussions regarding the clothing examination.

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

During the course of these discussions, I actually read FBI Agent Frazier's testimony regarding examination of the coat and tie.

Heiberger is the one who thereafter informed me that:

A. He had conducted no testing of the coat worn by JFK, and had no knowledge of this. In event that JFK's coat had been tested, then it must have been done by one of the other Agents within the Spectrographic Analysis Lab, as he did not test the coat.

B. Had a "control/comparision" sample been taken, then it should have been taken directly adjacent to the existing hole, and thereafter circled in white chalk for future reference and identification.

C. No "control/comparison" sample would have been taken at a positon some 4 to 5 inches higher on the coat, with the control sample having come from the vicinity of the coat collar where items such as hair cream or makeup could affect the outcome of the comparison.

D. He had X-rayed the hole in the shirt, found metallic residue, removed and tested that residue and found it to be copper.

X-rays revealed the only location of this residue was within the fibers surrounding the entrance hole, and that since copper is not a normal element of clothing manufacture, no "control/comparison" sample was, or would have been taken.

E. He was completely unaware of any "slit" in the front buttonhole vicinity of the shirt.

F. He examined the tie, it had an "abraised area", which he X-rayed and found metallic residue. Thereafter he was removed from the case and began his "Oswald was Here" evalluation of chalk.

To his recollection there was no "nick" on the tie, and that I must be confusing this with where one of the other Agents within the Spectrographic Analysis Section later completed examination of the tie and had cut and removed that portion of the tie in which he had, by X-ray, identified metallic residue.

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

Throughout the multiple discussions with Henry Heiberger in regards to examination of the clothing, I again returned calls to Gallagher and the others within the Spectrographic Analysis Lab, in order to specifically and again ask them questions in attempt to resolve who, if anyone, actually tested the coat of JFK, as well as the conflict regarding metallic residue which Heiberger stated was found by X-ray on the tie.

ALL within the Spectrographic Analysis Section, other than Henry Heiberger, stated that they had absolutely nothing to do with any examination of the clothing of JFK.

And, repeated discussions with FBI Agent Frazier completely failed to disclose the source of his information given at testimony, and when FBI Agent Gallagher was informed that Frazier recalled (thought) that Gallagher was the source, Gallagher stated absolutely not and that all of his time was expended with NAA work and he knew nothing of the testing of JFK's clothing.

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

All of which left Henry Heiberger as the sole individual who conducted any testing on the clothing of JFK.

When discussions regarding the conflicts of testimony regarding examination of the coat and the tie were specifically addressed with Henry Heiberger, he informed me that all one had to do was examine the test reports which he completed on each item of clothing examined, and each test conducted.

In that, there would be a ""Report" of the radiograhic (X-Ray) examination, as well as the radiographic film.

Thereafter, in event any form of residue was found, there would be an additional "Report" of the spectrographic analysis of that residue.

Furthermore, as I already knew, the FBI Laboratory always takes "Before" & "After" photographs of the evidence.

Thusly, there would be close-up photographs of the actual damage of the clothing "as found", as well as subsequent photographs of the damaged area after any manipulations had been completed.

Henry Heiberger personally stated that all reports completed relative to the examination of the clothing of JFK were turned in and were a matter of record and that in event that anyone had any questions in regards to exactly what pieces of JFK's clothing that he did or did not examine as well as exactly what test he did or did not conduct, that all they had to do was obtain these records.

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

In that regards, might I also remind that the 0.9 grain, cone-shaped/flat-based fragment of lead which was found in the left rear floorboard of the Presidential Limo, and which fragment was examined by FBI Agent Robert Frazier and identified as being "Poss Q1) (Possibly from CE399) was also made to disappear from the FBI Ballistics/Firearms Lab.

This fragment of lead was removed, with absolutely no trace, by none other than William Sullivan, and other than most probably showing up again as if it came from the wrist of JBC, this fragment of lead has never been seen again.

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

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely untrue. FBI spectrographer Henry Heiberger did examine JFK's clothing. I have personally examined his report covering the analysis and held the spectrographic plates he produced in my hands at NARA.

Well, on what I refer to as "good authority", that being directly told to me by Henry Heiberger, he never conducted any examination of the coat worn by JFK.

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, the fact is that his report and the actual OES glass negatives exist, thus trumping whatever words he uttered.

John Hunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...