Heiberger Tells All

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

BK

Bill:

Sufficient analysis was done to firmly establish that both holes in the coat (the hole just below the collar as well as the lower hole of which we are all aware) were the result of a copper /or copper coated projectile (bullet) having passed through the coat.

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

There are none so blind...

I'm done wasting my time on you.

Goodbye.

John Hunt

There exists several classifications of "blindness".

Among them being:

Those who have no vision, and will most assuredly never see.

And, those who have the ability of vision, yet still do not see.

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

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!

[Cliff Varnell]

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

JH:

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

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

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

http://subversivehistory.com/

TP:

Coat collars "raise"!

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

Jackets fall.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

JH:

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

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

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

http://subversivehistory.com/

TP:

Coat collars "raise"!

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

Jackets fall.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

So! In addition to being on the board for evaluation of "Best Dressed Man", you have now graduated to forensics as well.

Since you, it would appear, now claim to know what bullets do and do not do upon impact with clothing, why not explain exactly why the bullet which struck JFK in the back also "punched" out a perfect "plug" in the back of the shirt which also matches the shape of the bullet base, as well as having made a rather large hole in the coat worn by JFK.

ALL of which would be completely abnormal for a normal entering bullet.

Might want to take into consideration in you answer the fact that JFK's back wound had considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound of entry, which entry was described as "atypical" by Dr. Boswell.

And, along with the fact that a normal bullet entrance does not "punch" out cloth fabric and carry it down into the wound, would have also told you something, provided of course that you actually knew anything about wound ballistics and forensic pathology.

Which I might add, you do not!

Hint: (back wound in JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, was a "punch-type" wound of entry with relatively clean cut edges.)

(Deformed flat base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm X 7mm in size)

Now, the primary question is: Is Cliff smarter than an 5th grader? (who I can assure can figure this one out)

Edited April 19, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So! Exactly how many times can one find the words "hole in" in this document?

[Cliff Varnell]

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

JH:

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

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

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

http://subversivehistory.com/

TP:

Coat collars "raise"!

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

Jackets fall.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

So! In addition to being on the board for evaluation of "Best Dressed Man", you have now graduated to forensics as well.

Watching your pet theories get slaughtered before your very

eyes must be extremely painful, Tom.

I sympathize completely. No, I really do. I had a pet theory

once, and I had to watch it die when I received irrefutable

evidence against it.

I hope your period of denial and grief is brief, Tom.

Since you, it would appear, now claim to know what bullets do and do not do upon impact with clothing, why not explain exactly why the bullet which struck JFK in the back also "punched" out a perfect "plug" in the back of the shirt which also matches the shape of the bullet base, as well as having made a rather large hole in the coat worn by JFK.

ALL of which would be completely abnormal for a normal entering bullet.

Might want to take into consideration in you answer the fact that JFK's back wound had considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound of entry, which entry was described as "atypical" by Dr. Boswell.

And, along with the fact that a normal bullet entrance does not "punch" out cloth fabric and carry it down into the wound, would have also told you something, provided of course that you actually knew anything about wound ballistics and forensic pathology.

Which I might add, you do not!

Hint: (back wound in JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, was a "punch-type" wound of entry with relatively clean cut edges.)

(Deformed flat base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm X 7mm in size)

Now, the primary question is: Is Cliff smarter than an 5th grader? (who I can assure can figure this one out)

None of this has anything to do with the semi-circular fabric slice

found with the upper defect in the coat.

That semi-circular slice puts the lie to your claims, Tom.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Actually, in event that one has availability to Henry Heiberger's "working notes", then one just may want to see exactly how many locations on these documents one can find the word "hole".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

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

I was not under the impression that you had attended any such course.

The "Statement" is mine, as I just so happen to have attended a multitude of courses of instruction as run by the FBI.

"As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier."

Since I have examples of Robert Frazier's works, rest assured that it is not his!

Since I do not have examples of Henry Heiberger's works, I assume, based on the entire realm of documents, that it is his laboratory "working notes".

Try working on the extremely difficult "What makes a 4mm X 7mm Puncture type wound with relatively clean cut edges and also "punches" fabric down into the wound of entry, for now. It is not too difficult to resolve.

Examination and comparison of handwriting quite probably exceeds the limitations of your grasp for now.

P.S. If "control point" is under the collar, exactly what would one assume that the indication which is just below the edge of the collar represents?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

(emphasis added)

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

(emphasis added)

Humes didn't describe the fabric slit accurately.

Anyone can see for themselves.

http://subversivehistory.com/

[Cliff Varnell]

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

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

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

I was not under the impression that you had attended any such course.

The "Statement" is mine, as I just so happen to have attended a multitude of courses of instruction as run by the FBI.

"As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier."

Since I have examples of Robert Frazier's works, rest assured that it is not his!

Since I do not have examples of Henry Heiberger's works, I assume, based on the entire realm of documents, that it is his laboratory "working notes".

Try working on the extremely difficult "What makes a 4mm X 7mm Puncture type wound with relatively clean cut edges and also "punches" fabric down into the wound of entry, for now. It is not too difficult to resolve.

Examination and comparison of handwriting quite probably exceeds the limitations of your grasp for now.

P.S. If "control point" is under the collar, exactly what would one assume that the indication which is just below the edge of the collar represents?

I fail to see the relevance of this gibberish.

JFK's jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

I see you can't muster any smart remarks about that.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

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

I was not under the impression that you had attended any such course.

The "Statement" is mine, as I just so happen to have attended a multitude of courses of instruction as run by the FBI.

"As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier."

Since I have examples of Robert Frazier's works, rest assured that it is not his!

Since I do not have examples of Henry Heiberger's works, I assume, based on the entire realm of documents, that it is his laboratory "working notes".

Try working on the extremely difficult "What makes a 4mm X 7mm Puncture type wound with relatively clean cut edges and also "punches" fabric down into the wound of entry, for now. It is not too difficult to resolve.

Examination and comparison of handwriting quite probably exceeds the limitations of your grasp for now.

P.S. If "control point" is under the collar, exactly what would one assume that the indication which is just below the edge of the collar represents?

I fail to see the relevance of this gibberish.

JFK's jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

I see you can't muster any smart remarks about that.

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

Commander Humes

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

"Control point is under collar"

Henry Heiberger

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

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Fortunately, Henry Heiberger, in his lab working notes, wrote the wording "hole" as well as "hole in", more than sufficient times to give the exemplar necessary to recognize the wording.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now!

What was truely nice of Henry to do was fully identify exactly where (location wise) he actually took control as well as test samples.

As in this portion of his lab working notes, where he specifically identifies:

"Control & hole in ?????"

With the operative wording being "hole in", which demonstrates that the control sample, was taken from a location which also contained a "HOLE IN" the existing fabric.

So Cliff, exactly what could it have been that made the "HOLE IN" the fabric?