JFK jacket close-up

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

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.

Having been made aware of another "conflict" between what Henry Heiberger informed me of (that information relative to "Oswald was Her/Chalk/and a small town in Georgia), then I am also aware of the potential for other conflicts in memory and/or evidence as well.

Nevertheless, what is stated is exactly what Henry Heiberger relayed to me.

What you state, conflicts with what Heiberger informed me of.

From what limited information is available, you appear to be the only other person to have actually spoken with Henry Heiberger.

My discussions with him were in the early 1990's and I have no knowledge as to his age and/or memory ability.

Why not, for the record, state the exact nature of all conversations which you had with Henry in regards to his work on spectrographic analysis of the clothing worn by JFK.

All that I know is what he informed me of, and he most certainly did not appear to have any confusion on the subject matter.

his report and the actual OES glass negatives exist, thus trumping whatever words he uttered.[/b]

In the event that a complete and thorough evaluation of this evidence presents that it is in fact "bona fide" evidence, then it would directly contradict what Henry Heiberger stated to me.

However, when one considers:

A. Portions of CE840 were made to disappear from the FBI Ballistics Lab by William Sullivan.

B. FBI Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt was involved in the alteration of West Survey Data while in the

possession of the FBI.

C. FBI Agent Gauthier was, to a limited extent, involved in admission into evidence of altered Survey Data.

D. Henry Heiberger, the only known FBI Agent from the Spectrographic Analysis Section to admit to having conducted examination of the clothing of JFK was neither called to testify, nor was any of the supporting documentation which established what testing he actually conducted, submitted into evidence.

Then, your "find" in the National Archives, although of some potential significance, would be thrown out as having any probative value and/or worth, by virtually any court in the land.

It was not introduced into evidence during the initial establishment of what testing was conducted on the clothing.

The party (Heiberger) responsible for having purportedly generated the evidence, has never been questioned in regards to the validity/authenticity of that evidence.

All evidence, introduced by the WC which establishes the paramenters of what testing was or was not conducted on the clothing of JFK, constitutes complete HEARSAY testimony with absolutely ZERO documentation and/or witness testimony to substantiate the validity of what is stated.

Therefore, it "trumps" nothing, and merely represents another potential conflict within what individuals have stated and what the WC/Government did not provide as evidence to support their claims and can now suddenly be found within the National Archives.

And in that regards, one is reminded of the NAA evidence and how some are of the completely misguided impression that it "trumps" the other evidence.

Shall I also mention the copper jacket base to CE399 which was mysteriously removed from the bullet by "parties unknown" while it was in the possession of the National Archives?

[William Kelly]

Can the Spectrographic Analysis that wasn't done in 1963 be done today?

BK

[John Hunt]

Tom,

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, these two documents from the FBI LAB Files at NARA prove beyond question that Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt.

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

Secondly we have the report on Heiberger’s Spectro and Frazier’s Firearms examination. Notice:

1. The same PC Control # for JFK’s clothing, “78282”.

2. The “Examination requested”, “Firearms (G & A) – Spectro”

3. “Examined by “BX” (Frazier, the lead firearms examiner) and “HB”, (Heiberger, one of several experts in the Optical Emission Spectrography section of the P+C section of the FBI Lab).

Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt. Done.

John Hunt

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, these two documents from the FBI LAB Files at NARA prove beyond question that Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt.

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

Secondly we have the report on Heiberger’s Spectro and Frazier’s Firearms examination. Notice:

1. The same PC Control # for JFK’s clothing, “78282”.

2. The “Examination requested”, “Firearms (G & A) – Spectro”

3. “Examined by “BX” (Frazier, the lead firearms examiner) and “HB”, (Heiberger, one of several experts in the Optical Emission Spectrography section of the P+C section of the FBI Lab).

Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt. Done.

John Hunt

Tom,

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, these two documents from the FBI LAB Files at NARA prove beyond question that Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt.

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

And, the above document "proves" that the WC had Mr. Robert West survey in positions for Z161/166/& 210.

Unfortunately, all of Mr. West's survey notes, a full size copy of the WC Survey Plat; as well as personal discussions with Mr. West, tend to demonstrate otherwise.

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

Now! Back to the subject matter.

For benefit of those who are actually researching for the facts and truths, Henry Heiberger's comments have been provided here.

Would you now also provide the substance of all conversations which you had with Henry in regards to the spectrographic analysis of JFK's clothing and his exact response to those questions?

Exactly what did Henry say in regards to:

1. Examination of the coat worn by JFK?

2. The general procedures for taking "control" samples and their respective locations in regards to the existing area to be tested?

3. Examination of the shirt of JFK?

4. Examination of the tie of JFK?

Perhaps if you can provide the answers to these questions, then we can get right down to whatever conflicts that exist between what Henry Heiberger personally informed you of in regards to the spectrographic analysis of the clothing, as compared to what he told me in response to specific questions directed to him.

As regards the interesting documents which you have provided:

Secondly we have the report on Heiberger’s Spectro and Frazier’s Firearms examination. Notice:

1. The same PC Control # for JFK’s clothing, “78282”.

2. The “Examination requested”, “Firearms (G & A) – Spectro”

3. “Examined by “BX” (Frazier, the lead firearms examiner) and “HB”, (Heiberger, one of several experts in the Optical Emission Spectrography section of the P+C section of the FBI Lab).

Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt. Done.

John Hunt

It would appear that you are somewhat unfamiliar with FBI Documents and neither know, nor recognize the difference between a "Report of Examination", and a REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION.

The larger of the posted documents is a REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION form which the FBI completed upon having received a request for the examination of the articles listed at the bottom of the sheet.

This request was, as indicated, submitted by the US Secret Service.

My appreciation for having posted this, as this form serves to indicate exactly what has been previously stated. That being that FBI Agent Henry Heiberger was the only person to have been designated to conduct the spectrographic analysis of JFK's clothing.

Which pretty well "backs up" exactly what Gallagher; Heilman: (& the one I can not recall from memory) all informed me of.

Now, had you (as I have) received any training from the "Questioned Documents Section" of the FBI, then there are a few items of this form which you just may have caught on to.

1. This "request" for examination was received, as indicated, on 11/25 (63) at either 1.05 PM or 7. 05 PM.

In all probabililty, this is 7.05 PM, as the top left hand portion of the document serves to indicate that it was not "recorded" until 11/26/63, as well as a "confirmation" teletype being sent back to the Dallas office of the US SS on 11/26/63 as well.

And, the top left hand corner with the "confirmation", clearly demonstrates the character of the "3" which the typwriter produced, and which when compared with the "date received", clearly demonstrates that this request for examination of the clothing was not received until 11/25 of 63.

As well as the "received 11/25/63 from SA Orin Bartlett" statement.

So, the "big document/aka REQUEST for examination, establishes the general facts that on or about the afternoon of 11/25/63, the FBI received a request from the Dallas office of the US SS, to examine the clothing worn by JFK.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funeral...John_F._Kennedy

Procession to Cathedral

The procession began just before 11:00, when the coffin was carried out of the rotunda and placed on the caisson, which then made its way back to the White House.

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

Since the funeral procession for began just before 11:00 am, and the request for examination of the clothing of JFK was not received until either early, or late in the day of the 25th, perhaps Henry was somewhat embellishing upon the testing of the clothing as he appears to have done with me in regards to the "Oswald was Here" and chalk examination incident.

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

Nevertheless, the larger of the documents constitutes merely a "request" for examination. It provides no proof of any actual and physical tests conducted.

Discussion of second document to follow!

[John Hunt]

Read 'en weep, Tom

John Hunt

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, these two documents from the FBI LAB Files at NARA prove beyond question that Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt.

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

Secondly we have the report on Heiberger’s Spectro and Frazier’s Firearms examination. Notice:

1. The same PC Control # for JFK’s clothing, “78282”.

2. The “Examination requested”, “Firearms (G & A) – Spectro”

3. “Examined by “BX” (Frazier, the lead firearms examiner) and “HB”, (Heiberger, one of several experts in the Optical Emission Spectrography section of the P+C section of the FBI Lab).

Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt. Done.

John Hunt

Read 'en weep, Tom

John Hunt

Far too busy laughing at the time to "weep"!

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

First, those of us who actually have some experience in spectrographic analysis (which I also had a lab under my supervision at one time) are aware that one does not run MULTIPLE samples at the same time.

Thusly, in event that Henry Heiberger, or for that matter virtually anyone else, ran a sample, then they would have an emission record for any sample taken from the shirt which was tested and they most assuredly should have a second and totally separate record of any sample taken from the "hole in coat lining"* and thereafter also tested.

With that stated, it most certainly is not impossible to combine two known samples and run them together. However, the purpose of these tests was to determine the metallic composition of each residue.

Therefore, it would be most unlikely that anyone would actually combine two separate and distinct samples into a single run, as were either sample NOT of the same element, then one not only has one invalidated results, but has also lost samples.

Secondly, unless you have a far better memory than do I, then without an exact comparison, one can not tell if the emission spectrum is for lead, copper, or last weeks used prophylactic.

Now, shall we take a closer look at this wonderful "proof".

Did you happen to notice that much of that information found up there in the "PC" identification has been WRITTEN OVER in a darker ink?

That alone invalidates this!

Secondly, did you happen to notice that the actual PC number has been written over and corrected?

Thusly indicating that either someone made an initial and original mistake, or else someone has completely written over and changed some older results?

You did notice that the first "8" as well as the second "8" within the PC number are in fact written over what was previously existing numbers, did you not?

And of course, the final "2" happens to also be a completely different darkness than many of the original numbers as well.

Wanna take a guess as to exactly how well this document will hold up in any court, at this point????

Now, lets skip on down to the date of the document.

Kind of "jumps out" at one as to the darkness of certain items, which include the first "1" in "11", along with the "25" as well.

\

Not to mention the distinctive probability that the "3" in "63" was in fact originally a "2" in which someone has written over the 2, thus changing it to a 3.

Wanna take a second guess as to exactly how well this document will stand up in court.

Now, personally, I can not tell if the "HBH" is or is not the initials of Henry Heiberger. And, virtually no handwriting expert will testify to such either, as neither the "HBH", nor the combined writing constitutes sufficient examples to demonstrate that any of the handwriting on this "plate" is actually that of Henry Heiberger.

Just as the various changed numbers on CE884 ARE NOT the handwriting (or LeRoy set writing) of Mr. Robert West's draftsman.

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

Therefore, unless you can ressurect Henry Heiberger, or else have something more definitive in the way of a sworn and notarized affidavit from Henry, that the "plate" represents the exact results of testing which he conducted on the clothing worn by JFK, then you merely have another of the questionable WC Documents which from initial appearance appears to have been generated to buttress the examination of the clothing story.

In conclusion on this "Proof"!

It would appear that you have a spectrographic analysis light wave emission plate from some test which was most probably numbered "7?29" in which someone has written over two of the numbers and thereafter added an additional number "2" to the ending number,

in which, most probably the initials of Henry H. Heiberger also originally appeared.

And in which the original date was something such as "1/??/62" and which someone made into 11/25/63 through addition of a "1" to the month, writing completely over the actual day date, and thereafter changing the "2" in 62 to a "3". Thus making the date read "63".

And lastly of course, there exists the statement in some unknown handwriting that this test was for the fabric of the "coat liner" and "shirt", in some "combined" test.

Rest assured that even with my "outhouse attorney" skills, you and your "proof" would be laughed out of any court in the land with this "proof".

To include down here in "swamprat", Mississippi.

Did you bother to ask Henry Heiberger if he completed this? And, if so, exactly why there exists so many discrepancies with the item of evidence?

[John Hunt]

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

Regardless of what Heiberger told you, these two documents from the FBI LAB Files at NARA prove beyond question that Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt.

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

Secondly we have the report on Heiberger’s Spectro and Frazier’s Firearms examination. Notice:

1. The same PC Control # for JFK’s clothing, “78282”.

2. The “Examination requested”, “Firearms (G & A) – Spectro”

3. “Examined by “BX” (Frazier, the lead firearms examiner) and “HB”, (Heiberger, one of several experts in the Optical Emission Spectrography section of the P+C section of the FBI Lab).

Heiberger performed spectrographic testing on JFK’s coat and shirt. Done.

John Hunt

Read 'en weep, Tom

John Hunt

Far too busy laughing at the time to "weep"!

First we have the computer scan I made of the actual spectrographic glass negative produced by Heiberger. Notice:

1. The PC Control # for the clothing, 78282.

2. Heiberger’s initials, “HBH” in his handwriting.

3. The date, “11/25/63”. That would be Monday, which is when Heiberger told me he did the examination.

4. The notation, “hole in coat lining + shirt”.

First, those of us who actually have some experience in spectrographic analysis (which I also had a lab under my supervision at one time) are aware that one does not run MULTIPLE samples at the same time.

Thusly, in event that Henry Heiberger, or for that matter virtually anyone else, ran a sample, then they would have an emission record for any sample taken from the shirt which was tested and they most assuredly should have a second and totally separate record of any sample taken from the "hole in coat lining"* and thereafter also tested.

With that stated, it most certainly is not impossible to combine two known samples and run them together. However, the purpose of these tests was to determine the metallic composition of each residue.

Therefore, it would be most unlikely that anyone would actually combine two separate and distinct samples into a single run, as were either sample NOT of the same element, then one not only has one invalidated results, but has also lost samples.

Secondly, unless you have a far better memory than do I, then without an exact comparison, one can not tell if the emission spectrum is for lead, copper, or last weeks used prophylactic.

Now, shall we take a closer look at this wonderful "proof".

Did you happen to notice that much of that information found up there in the "PC" identification has been WRITTEN OVER in a darker ink?

That alone invalidates this!

Secondly, did you happen to notice that the actual PC number has been written over and corrected?

Thusly indicating that either someone made an initial and original mistake, or else someone has completely written over and changed some older results?

You did notice that the first "8" as well as the second "8" within the PC number are in fact written over what was previously existing numbers, did you not?

And of course, the final "2" happens to also be a completely different darkness than many of the original numbers as well.

Wanna take a guess as to exactly how well this document will hold up in any court, at this point????

Now, lets skip on down to the date of the document.

Kind of "jumps out" at one as to the darkness of certain items, which include the first "1" in "11", along with the "25" as well.

\

Not to mention the distinctive probability that the "3" in "63" was in fact originally a "2" in which someone has written over the 2, thus changing it to a 3.

Wanna take a second guess as to exactly how well this document will stand up in court.

Now, personally, I can not tell if the "HBH" is or is not the initials of Henry Heiberger. And, virtually no handwriting expert will testify to such either, as neither the "HBH", nor the combined writing constitutes sufficient examples to demonstrate that any of the handwriting on this "plate" is actually that of Henry Heiberger.

Just as the various changed numbers on CE884 ARE NOT the handwriting (or LeRoy set writing) of Mr. Robert West's draftsman.

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

Therefore, unless you can ressurect Henry Heiberger, or else have something more definitive in the way of a sworn and notarized affidavit from Henry, that the "plate" represents the exact results of testing which he conducted on the clothing worn by JFK, then you merely have another of the questionable WC Documents which from initial appearance appears to have been generated to buttress the examination of the clothing story.

In conclusion on this "Proof"!

It would appear that you have a spectrographic analysis light wave emission plate from some test which was most probably numbered "7?29" in which someone has written over two of the numbers and thereafter added an additional number "2" to the ending number,

in which, most probably the initials of Henry H. Heiberger also originally appeared.

And in which the original date was something such as "1/??/62" and which someone made into 11/25/63 through addition of a "1" to the month, writing completely over the actual day date, and thereafter changing the "2" in 62 to a "3". Thus making the date read "63".

And lastly of course, there exists the statement in some unknown handwriting that this test was for the fabric of the "coat liner" and "shirt", in some "combined" test.

Rest assured that even with my "outhouse attorney" skills, you and your "proof" would be laughed out of any court in the land with this "proof".

To include down here in "swamprat", Mississippi.

Did you bother to ask Henry Heiberger if he completed this? And, if so, exactly why there exists so many discrepancies with the item of evidence?

It would be highly remiss were I to not acknowledge and state my appreciation and thanks for having provided the evidence which substantiates what I have also long suspected.

Being that FBI Agent Robert Frazier has definitively played some role in obfuscation of the facts and evidence in this matter.

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

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

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.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you then please tell us what those tests disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - Traces of copper were found around the margins of the hole in the back of the coat, and as a control, a very small section under the collar was taken, and no copper being found there, it was concluded that the copper was foreign to the coat itself.

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

As has been stated on this forum, although I was never absollutely aware of any lie which Frazier may (or may not) have stated during our conversations, I always had "that feeling" that he knew far more then he was telling.

In regards to my questions surrounding CE399, Frazier was clear and concise with his answers.

Of course, I had sent him photo's of CE399, along with the later photo's which demonstrated the fact that the copper jacket base was now missing as well, and one who claims to know anything in regards to bullet structure would be a complete idiot to attempt to lie to someone else who has also demonstrated a similar knowledge.

Therefore, all questions of Robert Frazier regarding CE399, appeared to be open and honest.

Nevertheless, I was also aware that Robert Frazier was the "co-partner" of Lyndal Shaneyfelt in the WC fiasco of the assassination re-enactment.

At various times, Frazier occupied the Zapruder position and Shaneyfelt the Assassin's position, then they switched and Shaneyfelt was at the Z-position with Frazier at the assassin's window.

This alone (association with the WC re-enactment) was more than sufficient cause to suspect that Frazier just might be one of "Hoover's Boys".

However, in order to keep an open chain of communication, I never challenged Frazier on any of his part in the WC re-enactment, and in fact never even discussed the subject matter with him.

However! The clothing was an entirely different issue.

Dr. Humes of course had absolultely no knowledge as to what testing may or may not have been conducted on the clothing of JFK, and, when the items were introduced into evidence during the questioning of Humes, merely went along with the "Memorandum" which was apparantly attached to the coat, and of which Dr. Humes had his "pre-deposition" discussion with Arlen Specter on.

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

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.

Commander HUMES - We had an opportunity to examine this exhibit before the Commission met today, sir. This is Commission Exhibit No. 395, and is the neck tie purportedly worn, purportedly to have been worn, by the late President on the day of his assassination.

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

Not unlike any good attorney, Specter always "prepped/rehearsed" his witnesses prior to their actual testimony.

Of course, that did not prevent members of the Commission from being stupid:

Mr. McCLOY - Before you go, may I ask a question? In your examination of the shirt, I just want to get it in the record, from your examination of the shirt. there is no defect in the collar of the shirt which coincides with the defect in the back of the President's coat, am I correct?

Commander HUMES - You are correct, sir. There is no such defect.

So! It is now "in the record"

Along with another of my favorites:

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

Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of Exhibit 399, can you identify the caliber of that bullet?

Colonel FINCK - The caliber of this bullet, if I could measure it, but I cannot touch it.

The CHAIRMAN - We can.

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

Back to the clothing!

Whereas Frazier was the only individual from the FBI to actually discuss examination of the clothing, and this discussion was also an "after-the-fact" of the clothing having been previously admitted into evidence during the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, my first contact in attempt to find factual answers, was with Robert Frazier.

Here, I began to get the "run around", as Frazier talked in a few circles as to how he could not recall exactly how he came by this information as well as exactly who provided that information to him.

Finally, after repeated attempt to elicit an answer, Frazier stated that he thought that the information came from FBI Agent John Gallagher.

Which information, as also previously stated, lead me to again contact Gallagher (I had long prior discussed CE399 as well as the NAA work with Gallagher).

And of course, Gallagher informed me that he knew nothing about the spectrographic analysis examination of the clothing of JFK, and thereafter provided me with the name of three others from the lab whom he stated would be the ones, if anyone, to have conducted this testing.

Armed with that knowledge, I again contacted Frazier, and although I did not mention by name any of the other agents from the spectrographic analysis lab, I specifically informed Frazier that I had spoken with Gallagher and the he denied any knowledge of the spectrographic work as well as having provided Frazier any information relative to this work.

I again asked Frazier as to exactly where he obtained his information, and Frazier informed me that if it had not come from Gallagher, then he could not recall exactly where he got that information from.

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

Of course, I later went to those persons whom Gallagher had named, and ultimately spoke with all three, thus narrowing it down to Henry Heiberger being the only persons to have actually examined the clothing worn by JFK.

I would further add at this point that neither Gallagher nor Heiberger had much to say that was good about Frazier.

Few are aware that Frazier was also at Oak Ridge with Gallagher (at times during the testing), and of course Frazier was also utilized to admit into WC evidence all discussion regarding the NAA work done by Gallagher and those other agents from the Chemistry/Spectrographic lab.

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

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

Mr. FRAZIER - That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments were similar in composition.

My Note: Yep! They were all lead.

However, I would have much preferred it had Gallagher been asked about the NAA work as we just may have learned something.

Of course, by having Frazier give this testimony as well, as that regarding the examination of JFK's clothing, one could state that "I" learned something.

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

Gallagher personally informed me that Frazier understood virtually nothing in regards to NAA as well as the spectrographic works.

And, Henry Heiberger apparantly had the same disdain for Frazier as he too stated that Frazier knew nothing about his work.

All of which at the time, I considered as potentially only normal "in-house" animosity between different areas of responsibility, yet had to also store in that area of knowledge in which many of the FBI Agents with whom I spoke with placed Shaneyfelt as well as Paul Strombaugh.--------------"Hoover's Boys"!

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

Back to the attachment/FBI Form.

This form clearly establishes two facts!

1. FBI Agent Robert Frazier was highly involved in the issues of the spectrographic analysis of the clothing of JFK, along with Henry Heiberger being the Lab Analyst who actually conducted that testing.

Therefore, I find it most unlikely that Frazier could not "recall" exactly where he came by that information in regards to the "WHO?" conducted this testing.

Which places the perspective of either severe memory loss on the part of Frazier (which he most certainly did not demonstrate), or else this document provides the necessary information to demonstrate that Robert Frazier lied to me in regards to his knowledge surrounding the analysis of JFK's clothing by Henry Heiberger, and, deliberately sent me off onto a false trail looking for FBI Agent John Gallagher.

With this document, I must now accept that Robert Frazier has played some intentional part as one of "Hoover's Boys", in obfuscation of the facts of the assassination of JFK.

This conclusion is based on:

1. His "co-part" assistance in the WC's completely phony assassination re-enactment.

2. His part in providing what limited information the WC gave in regards to the NAA examination by FBI Agent John Gallagher, when in fact Gallagher was the only person qualified to give this information, yet was not questioned.

3. His part in providing what limited information the WC gave in regards to the actual spectrographic anlysis of the clothing worn by JFK, when in fact Henry Heiberger was the only person qualified to give that information, yet was not questioned.

4. If Robert Frazier qualifies as an expert in anything, then it is in the field of firearms; bullets; and ballistics. Therefore, he, beyond any reasonable doubt would have known what it took to deform CE399 to it's existing state. Yet, he has never made any statements regarding the dense material through which CE399 would have had to pass in order to achieve it's current state of being.

5. Robert Frazier clearly identified the missing fragment from CE840 (the cone-shaped/flat-based/0.9 grain fragment) as "Poss Q1)/aka Possibly from CE399, yet he has never so informed anyone of that conclulsion.

6. During the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, Robert Frazier was called to testify, in which he stated:

"or the other alternative would be if the bullet tumbled in flight and struck in a base-first attitude",

Which just so happens to be exactly what CE399 did!

As to the attached form:

2. Virtually ALL of the handwritten notes on this form were done by FBI Agent Robert Frazier. It is, rest assured, his handwritten notes, which also happens to demonstrate how involved in the testing of JFK's clothing he actually was.

Thus, his vagueness to me in regards to examination of the clothing and who may have conducted this testing, as well as the ultimate results is now a provable lie.

Which now, for the first time, clearly establishes that FBI Agent Robert Frazier was not truthful with me when he answered my questions in regards to the results of the spectrographic analysis of the clothing of JFK.

And, anyone who wishes to "call his hand" on this can do so:

Robert Frazier

1704 Oak Lane

McLean, VA 22101

TEL: 703-533-2877

At last contact years ago.

P.S. I have also attended a course conducted by the FBI in "handwriting analysis" if it is of any consequence!

Edited April 16, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

From that, I would assume that you also believed that CE884 was an "original" and untampered with document as well.

Take a good close look at Frame#210.

One does not even have to had any actual "questioned document" training to spot this one.

And, since you were not the one to point it out, I must assume that you also fell for and believed that the WC presented survey data was accurate as well.

As to whether or not the "plate" represents anything authentic, neither you nor I can state with authority.

I can state that, from all known standards, samples are run ONE AT A TIME, NOT COMBINED.

This, added to the other problems observed, clearly establishes that "YOUR PROOF" is completely lacking.

And, when coupled with the known fact that persons within the FBI were intentionally altering evidence to support their presented scenario, makes "your proof" as invalid as is the altered survey data block.

At least, I have a copy of the original (unaltered) survey data block as well as Mr. West Survey Notes to clearly demonstrate the level to which certain members of "Hoover's Boys" were going along to support the SBT theory that Specter & Company were attempting to sale.

So far, "YOUR PROOF" has consisted primarily of notes written on a "Laboratory Work Sheet", in which virtually all information provided is in the handwriting of FBI Agent Robert Frazier.

Which, proves nothing in regards to actual testing conducting, while at the same time proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Robert Frazier at best, misrepresented to me his knowledge surrounding examination of JFK's clothing, and at worst, completely lied to me in regards to his involvment in this examination of the evidence.

Along with a highly questionable copy of some spectrographic light wave emission for some sample which was run at some unknown and unconfirmed time, in which the handwritten data has been "written over" in numerous areas.

You may be dumb enough to fall for and believe that this represents "FACTUAL" evidence.------I most assuredly am not!

All that it does is bring into light the further obfuscation of the factual examination of the evidence by various and specific agents within the FBI who were by many others, considered to be "Hoover's Boys", as well as confirming what I had long suspected about Robert Frazier knowing far more than he was actually telling about the examination of evidence within the various areas of the FBI.

Now, for a lesson in the english language:

"Control point is under collar"

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

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.

My appreciation for the photograph of the SECOND BULLET PENETRATION through the coat of JFK, which penetration is located JUST BELOW THE COLLAR!

Along with having provided that information which has finally laid to rest any doubts in regards to Robert Frazier's participation in assisting in obscurring presentation of the factual evidence.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

From that, I would assume that you also believed that CE884 was an "original" and untampered with document as well.

Take a good close look at Frame#210.

One does not even have to had any actual "questioned document" training to spot this one.

And, since you were not the one to point it out, I must assume that you also fell for and believed that the WC presented survey data was accurate as well.

As to whether or not the "plate" represents anything authentic, neither you nor I can state with authority.

I can state that, from all known standards, samples are run ONE AT A TIME, NOT COMBINED.

This, added to the other problems observed, clearly establishes that "YOUR PROOF" is completely lacking.

And, when coupled with the known fact that persons within the FBI were intentionally altering evidence to support their presented scenario, makes "your proof" as invalid as is the altered survey data block.

At least, I have a copy of the original (unaltered) survey data block as well as Mr. West Survey Notes to clearly demonstrate the level to which certain members of "Hoover's Boys" were going along to support the SBT theory that Specter & Company were attempting to sale.

So far, "YOUR PROOF" has consisted primarily of notes written on a "Laboratory Work Sheet", in which virtually all information provided is in the handwriting of FBI Agent Robert Frazier.

Which, proves nothing in regards to actual testing conducting, while at the same time proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Robert Frazier at best, misrepresented to me his knowledge surrounding examination of JFK's clothing, and at worst, completely lied to me in regards to his involvment in this examination of the evidence.

Along with a highly questionable copy of some spectrographic light wave emission for some sample which was run at some unknown and unconfirmed time, in which the handwritten data has been "written over" in numerous areas.

You may be dumb enough to fall for and believe that this represents "FACTUAL" evidence.------I most assuredly am not!

All that it does is bring into light the further obfuscation of the factual examination of the evidence by various and specific agents within the FBI who were by many others, considered to be "Hoover's Boys", as well as confirming what I had long suspected about Robert Frazier knowing far more than he was actually telling about the examination of evidence within the various areas of the FBI.

Now, for a lesson in the english language:

"Control point is under collar"

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

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.

My appreciation for the photograph of the SECOND BULLET PENETRATION through the coat of JFK, which penetration is located JUST BELOW THE COLLAR!

Along with having provided that information which has finally laid to rest any doubts in regards to Robert Frazier's participation in assisting in obscurring presentation of the factual evidence.

For those few who are reading this topic, one item should be most abundantly clear.

That being the difficulty in getting factual information relative to the assassination, even when one speaks directly with the participating parties.

And, despite what Mr. Hunt may think, he is owed (on my part) a debt of gratitude for his work in which he has provided sufficient documentation to clearly demonstrate that FBI Agent Robert Frazier has played an integral part in the continued obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination.

For those who have not read Mr. Hunt's works dealing with the "run-around" which Frazier gave him in regards to the assignment of "Q" numbers to evidence, it is well worth the reading.

Along with what I had long suspected, and which those documents Mr. Hunt has posted here, more than sufficient evidence and statements from those few of us who have actually spoken directly with Frazier, has now surfaced to insure his inclusion within the FBI heirarchy of being one of "Hoover's Boys".

That Frazier quite obviously made an attempt to "steer" me away from Henry Heiberger in regards to discussing the spectrograpic analysis conducted on the clothing of JFK, can now be added to his ever growing listing of attempts to continue to confuse.

With that stated, I will also state that to a relatively high probability, the "working notes" which Mr. Hunt has provided are in all probability the actual laboratory working notes of Henry Heiberger.

And, since I have no known samples of his actual handwriting, there is nothing which can be deemed factual, which would tend to discredit and/or dispute this probability.

Note: These may be the actual "working notes", however they still are not the final "Lab Report" which is ultimately completed and turned in by the agent conducting the examinations.

So, if one assumes that these notes are factually from Henry Heiberger, then beginning with the slit in the front of the shirt and the tie, then there exists a severe problem with these notes and what Henry Heiberger personally informed me.

That being:

1, That he conducted no testing of and "slit" in the front collar of the coat and in fact was not aware that any such item existed.

2. That he X-rayed the "abraised" area of the tie. (abraised in that none of the fabric was actually missing) This X-ray revealed metallic residue embedded in the cloth of the tie.

3. That he conducted no further testing of the tie.

4. That I must be confusing the "nick" with where one of the other agents of the spectrographic analysis lab had cut; removed; and tested that metallic residue which he had found during X-ray examination.

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

Now! We have previously discussed the quite obvious conflict between what Heiberger informed me of in relationship to the "Oswald was Here"/Chalk episode, and the state of Georgia.

Which quite obviously was not the "complete truth".

And now, we have an absolutely and complete misrepresentation on the part of Henry Heiberger in regards to exactly what tests were conducted on various pieces of JFK's clothing. (assuming that we accept that these are his working notes and that I too am telling the truth in regards to our conversations on this subject).

Heiberger most assuredly did not appear to have reached senility back in the early 1990's when I spoke with him, and he most assuredly stated the above to me.

When I read him Frazier's statements in regards to the shirt slit & tie examination, not unlike the other conflicts with what he had told me, Heiberger stated that the FBI Records would clearly demonstrate exactly what tests he did and did not run on the clothing.

So, under the assumption that what Mr. Hunt has provided is in fact the handwritten working notes of Henry Heiberger, then we now know that he apparantly DID examine the slit in the front collar of the shirt as well as conduct spectrographic analysis of this as well as the tie damage with no results.

Which happens to be directly in conflict with what he personally told me many years ago.

And, which should clearly demonstrate to all the almost impossiblity of resolving these conflicting issues this many years later with most of the participants deceased and much of the factual documentation either locked away or thrown away.

"FRAZIER SPEAKS"-----------------------------With "forked tongue"!