Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Then! One might want to compare the outline of the base of CE399 with the outline of the hole that was "punched" into the back of JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Then!One might want to compare the outline of the base of CE399 with the outline of the hole that was "punched" into the back of JFK. Seem to have it all covered Tom nice work on this one! And again many thanks for sharing it with me. Im sure this is not the first time you have gone through this. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Then!One might want to compare the outline of the base of CE399 with the outline of the hole that was "punched" into the back of JFK. Seem to have it all covered Tom nice work on this one! And again many thanks for sharing it with me. Im sure this is not the first time you have gone through this. Mike b]Im sure this is not the first time you have gone through this.[/b] Nope! Merely the first time that I have ever gone through it with anyone who appears to have immediately grasped the potential significance of the information. Sit back and enjoy! Class is still in session, and we have not even finished with the first shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 An additional bit of information can also be gained when one looks at the "punched" out outline/shape of the hole which the bullet made in JFK's shirt. (left photo) Which happens to be fully demonstrated as being quite abnormal when compared with a normal 6.5mm Carcano bullet hole through similar fabric. (on the right). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 In continuation! A comparison of the 4mm X 7mm deformed base of CE399 with the oval ("atypical") punch-type wound in the back of JFK which had relatively clean-cut edges and which wound also measured 4mm X 7mm, could possibly provide a clue to most fifth graders as to exactly which end of CE399 struck JFK. This "clue" is also much easier to correlate when one takes into consideration: A. What a normal 6.5mm Carcano bullet entry wound looks like, as in the center photo. B. What a wound created with a flat-nosed "wadcutter" bullet looks like, as in the bottom photo. C. That the back wound of JFK had much of the fabric from the coat and shirt carried down into the wound of entry by the entering bullet. D. That a normal wound of entry does not have fabric carried into the entry wound (forensic fact). E. Most persons can envision what a "paper punch" does. F. Most persons can thereafter envision exactly what type of hole a paper punch which measured 4mm X 7mm would punch. P.S. Due to having been fired on a downward angle, the vertical dimension, ballistically, should be the longer dimension of the wound with the abrasion collar located at the top edge of the wound. And lastly, one should not forget that the HSCA determined that the "abrasion collar" was at the bottom edge of the wound, when means that either a midget was hiding in the trunk of the limo and shot JFK upwards through the trunk of the car or else some other physical phenomenon caused this event. HSCA Drawing JFK F-24. Downward angle of fire, "B" would represent the "Abrasion Collar" at the top edge of the wound. "A" would represent the cleaner cut edge created by the bullet. Tom Purvis Drawing Why and how CE399, in it's tumbling base first attitude impact, created the punch-type wound into the back of JFK as well as the abrasion collar at the bottom edge of the wound of entry. Not to mention the simple fact that the wound in the back of JFK is elongated horizontally and in comparison to the deformed base of CE399, as opposed to virtually no vertical elongation of the wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm Before closing shop for the night, I would remind those who truly seek the answers that they should review and pay particular attention to the writings of SS Agent Glen Bennett. Immediately after the assassination and while enroute back to Bethesda, Bennett wrote in his notebook of having observed the shot strike JFK in the back: "I saw a shot that hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder" Confirmation of this shot impact to JFK did not come until late in the autopsy when the body of JFK was turned over and the back wound entrance found. Many, who clearly have demonstrated little understanding of the evidence, have had much to say about SS Bennett's statements concerning haveing seen a shot/bullet/or for that matter anything else strike JFK in the back. And, of course, it would be most unlikely that SS Agent Bennett would have the visual acuity to observe a 2,000 to 2,000 fps 6.5mm Carcano bullet travel through the air and strike anything. However! It does not take that great of a degree of visual acuity to observe a reduced velocity bullet which happens to be tumbling end-over-end in flight. "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." But then again, Bennett also stated that it was the SECOND shot which struck JFK in the right rear high of the head! Just as did several other persons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Bullet Weight Accountability! Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Thanks. Roy Bierma Since he was still living at last account: Robert Frazier 1704 Oak Lane McLean, VA 22101 Tel: 703-533-2877 Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. And, yes! There is a document! Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times. Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared. Same Answer: Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully! Mike Unless somewhat like myself by now, he did the same many years ago! He knows much which he has never openly revealed. When one discusses the subject matter correctly, they can not help but walk away knowing this. Kind of like his little "game" played in the Shaw trial testimony. Tom, I looked back for the weight accountability, and can not see the docs you posted so I will just ask. Was the .67 grains in your prior calculations the weight of the copper cover for the base of the bullet? 158.6=CE399 .9= the "missing" fragment .67=?? How would this relate to the overall weight if the copper bottom is not accounted for? I do recall that this bullet could have weighted as much as 163 grains per Fraziers +/- 2 grains. Mike When one gets to it, I do not recall exactly what "Lot#'s" Dr. Lattimer managed to acquire in order to weigh his 100 bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Sad state of affairs that to date, as far as is known, I remain the only person to even attempt to sufficiently demonstrate that a bullet loses a fair amount of it's weight merely as a result of having been fired. Makes one think that even those who have done so, did not understand much of the reasoning behind continously having to clean them rifle barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 This little portion was written at some point in the 1991/1992 time frame. At that time, the JFK Records Act had not resulted in release of the FBI/NA photo which clearly demonstrates that the base of CE399 had it's copper jacket intact when the bullet was turned over to the National Archives. Therefore, when written, there was no means available in which to verify if FBI Agents Frazier and Gallagher had, or had not misrepresented anything. With release of the FBI/NA photo, this clearly confirmed that alteration to the bullet base had transpired at some point after the bullet was placed into the possession of the National Archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Although the missing copper jacket at the base of CE399 has been fully discussed, there are a few additional items of interest in the following pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Anyone aware as to whether William Sullivan ever visited the National Archives after CE399 was turned over to them by the FBI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 In event that one has nothing better to do in life, then they may want to take an extremely close look at the gouge's into the lead core of the base of CE399, as well as where the "impact damage" is located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Tomorrow! CE399, the "not-so Magic" bullet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 "I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same." (James Looney to Tom Purvis at his office at the OSBI, many years ago) James Looney Firearms & Toolmark Examiner OSBI (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation) Member: AFTE http://www.afte.org/ http://www.afte.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi AFTE Committees (/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm) http://afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm Member of the Year Richard K. Maruoka, Chair James Looney Garry Lawrence Kenton Wong Patrick Ball ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 The "short version" of what James Looney was presented with.* He was actually presented with: 1. Multiple photo's of CE399 2. Photo's of as well as the full bullet PE399 3. Photo's of the actual testing events. 4. Comparative Analysis 5. Probable Cause listing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now