Heiberger Tells All

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For a considerable number of years (since speaking with Henry Heiberger back in/around 1990/1991) it has been obvious that the WC was an obvious lie as well as misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination.

And, along with other aspects of evidence which the WC had manipulated, based on my direct discussions with Henry Heiberger (to include the other FBI Agents from the FBI Spectro Lab), it was assumed that Specter & Company had directly misrpresented that evidence as relates to the spectrographic analysis of the clothing of JFK.

Based on direct statements made to me by Henry Heiberger, it has been stated by myself that JFK's coat was not examined by Heiberger.

In addition, it was stated that Heiberger had conducted no testing of the slit in the front collar (at the buttonhole) of the shirt worn by JFK, as well as the fact that X-ray of the abrasion of the tie revealed metallic residue, which Heiberger never completed any further testing of.

Provided that one accepts the "lab working notes" as presented by John Hunt as being the factual working notes of Henry Heiberger (which I for one accept), then it becomes quite obvious that Henry Heiberger absolutely lied to me in regards to his physical examination and spectrographic testing of the clothing worn by JFK.

So!----:

1. I have been incorret in stating that Henry Heiberger conducted no testing of the coat worn by JFK.

2. I have been incorrect in stating that Henry Heiberger conducted no testing of the "slit" in the front collar of the shirt worn by JFK.

3. I have been incorrect in stating that Henry Heiberger X-rayed the abraised area of the tie of JFK and revealed metallic residue, which, no further testing was conducted on.

What is somewhat confusing in regards to those discussions with Heiberger is the fact that after having basically lied to me in regards to aspects of the spectrographic analyiss, he thereafter informed me that the Lab Reports which he completed would demonstrate what testing he actually conducted, if anyone had any doubts or questions.

Thusly, Heiberger lied in regards to the actual tests conducted, yet then pointed directly to those documents which would demonstrate that he had lied, had I taken the time and effort to have followed through and found and examined these documents.

In that regards, I must fully question the motives of Henry Heiberger as well as the man himself.

If one tells what are absolute lies, with the intention of keeping those lies a secret, then one does not normally make it a matter of record to absolutelly point to documents which would demonstrate said lie.

Too bad that I did not have the foresight and forethought to have followed through on what Henry Heiberger basically told me to do.

Had I done so, then I would have also had the privilidege of actually finding and pointing out the "Smoking Gun" in the assassination of JFK.

However, as it stands, I merely have the privilege of pointing out that the "Smoking Gun" has existed all along, and what it actually is.

Tom

P.S. The second hole in the coat of JFK:

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

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.

[i]Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect.[/i]

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

Is, as has been stated, the initial impact point for the third/last/final/down in front of James Altgens shot/bullet, as it struck the coat, penetrated through the coat and liner on an oblique angle and exited to strike JFK in the scalp just above the edge of the hairline.

Thereafter tunneling through the soft tissue at the base of the neck and striking the skull in a position that is higher than the scalp entrance, in the vicinity of the EOP of the skull.

[Cliff Varnell]

Provided that one accepts the "lab working notes" as presented by John Hunt as being the factual working notes of Henry Heiberger (which I for one accept), then it becomes quite obvious that Henry Heiberger absolutely lied to me in regards to his physical examination and spectrographic testing of the clothing worn by JFK.

I know someone who went to school with one of Heiberger's daughters.

The impression this person got in talking about the JFK matter with the

younger Heiberger was that something wasn't kosher with the FBI's

examination the clothing -- and Heiberger himself was extremely

protective of his family.

fwiw...

Tom

P.S. The second hole in the coat of JFK:

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

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.

[i]Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect.[/i]

Is that what we see here? How did a bullet leave a semi-circular

fabric slice and a small hole at the end of that slice?

http://subversivehistory.com/

Is, as has been stated, the initial impact point for the third/last/final/down

in front of James Altgens shot/bullet, as it struck the coat, penetrated through

the coat and liner on an oblique angle and exited to strike JFK in the scalp just

above the edge of the hairline. Thereafter tunneling through the soft tissue

at the base of the neck and striking the skull in a position that is higher than

the scalp entrance, in the vicinity of the EOP of the skull.

So the bullet penetrated the coat but not the shirt and somehow

something from this shot travelled some 85 yards into the teeth

of a hard swirling wind and maintained enough velocity to chip

concrete and wound Tague...

I think you need another hobby, Tom.

All your pet theories are dead.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps if we all chip in, then we can assist those who fail to understand what the evidence states.

Hopefully, since this is the "Education Forum", we have those who are fully versed in the English Language.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps if we all chip in, then we can assist those who fail to understand what the evidence states.

Hopefully, since this is the "Education Forum", we have those who are fully versed in the English Language.

I do believe that I hear the "fat lady" warming up to sing!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Two down, one to go!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Two down, one to go!

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

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

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!

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*

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

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)

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

And, for those such as Cliff, testing of an 1/4 inch hole on the outside of the coat, then testing of an 1/2 inch hole on the inside liner of the coat which hole correlates with the 1/2 inch hole in the shirt, does not correlate to testing of the "same" hole in the coat.

The "1/4" inch hole in the outside back of the coat being the normal bullet penetration hole through the fabric as created by normal bullet impact, which hole is located up just below the edge of the coat collar.

The "1/2" inch hole on the inside liner of the coat as well as the corresponding 1/2 inch hole in the back of the shirt, being the penetration created by the base of CE399, which measured some 4mm X 7mm in size and which bullet upon impact base first also "punched out" considerable fabric from the coat and shirt.

Cliff!

Did it ever dawn on you that in event one finds evidence of copper on the "Outside" hole of the coat fabric that there is little to be served by running some "verification" testing on the insider liner in the exact same point of penetration????

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So the bullet penetrated the coat but not the shirt and somehow

something from this shot travelled some 85 yards into the teeth

of a hard swirling wind and maintained enough velocity to chip

concrete and wound Tague...

I think you need another hobby, Tom.

All your pet theories are dead.

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

Actually Cliff!

When one has even a remote understanding of the evidence, then they know that the bullet, as fired on a downward angle, never left the confines of the Presidential Vehicle. (or at least did not until such time as JBC was lifted out of the car).

And, after having exited the frontal lobe of the brain of JFK, the bullet travelled onward to strike the first object in it's pathway.

That being the back right shoulder/armpit area of JBC as he lay across the open area between the jumpseats, thus exposing his right rear shoulder area to the downward path of the bullet.

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)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Is that what we see here? How did a bullet leave a semi-circular

fabric slice and a small hole at the end of that slice?

I take it that someone neglected to read to you that Heiberger took two samples around the 1/4 inch hole.

So!

Not only did Henry Heiberger throw a "red flag" on the playing field by referencing the 1/4 inch hole, but he threw an additional flag to insure that we "saw" that his work on the outside of the coat was done at the 1/4 inch size penetration through the coat, while his work on the "inside liner" of the coat was done at the 1/2 inch size penetration through the coat.

All things considered, it quite obviously was not that difficult to confuse you with that little escapade either.

Hoover & Company may have been "sneaky", but most are still lacking when it compares with what some of us were taught.