"BONEHEAD" Award

[John Bevilaqua]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

[Denis Pointing]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

Quite obviously I did not "sign on" here to win friends or influence enemies.

As well as being neither socially nor politically "correct"!

Nevertheless, I do often manage to get my point across:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...b858a9472426177

So, Mr. DVP/aka Dumbass Von Parrot!

Exactly what was it that Henry Heiberger said to you in regards to the

spectrographic analysis of JFK's clothing which he conducted?

Oh! I'm sorry, you do not actually conduct research do you? Instead,

you either read (or have someone else read and explain to you) what

the WC has to say, as well as what your butt-buddy Bugloisi has to say

on the subject matter.

And then, not unlike many of the CT community, you dive off into a

rabbithole and run around expousing this as if it were the FACTUAL

truths.

To that form of empirical research let me state:

"STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES"!

Now! "For the Record" again.

I spoke with FBI Agent Robert Frazier and asked exactly where he

obtained his information relative to the spectrographic analysis of

JFK's clothing, and specifically the coat.

Frazier informed me that he "did not recall" exactly where that

information (what he had stated in WC testimony) had come from, and

that it "probably" came from FBI Agent John Gallagher.

I spoke with FBI Agent John Gallagher and he so informed me that he

had absolutely nothing to do with the examination of the clothing of

JFK, that he and one other Agent (name not recalled) spent most of

their time at Oak Ridge running the new NAA process on bullet and

bullet fragments.

Again spoke with FBI Agent Frazier who so informed me that if the

information to which he had testified did not come from Gallagher,

then he did not recall exactly who provided him with this

information.*

===========================================================================­====

=========

*Note: Considering the amount of information which FBI Agent Frazier

"re-wrote" relative to the Spectrographic Analysis, as well as:

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.

It would seem most unlikely that FBI Robert Frazier could not recall

the single FBI Laboratory Technician (Agent) who was responsible for

having conducted this spectrograpic examination.

===========================================================================­====

=========

SO! Back to FBI Agent John Gallagher.

Who informed me that the only two persons who could have possibly

conducted this testing would be either Bill Heilman

or Henry Heiberger.

SO! To Bill Heilman, who stated to me that he conducted none of the

testing of JFK's clothing.

So! To Henry Heiberger, who stated to me that YES! he had conducted

the spectrographic examination of the clothing of JFK.

When I questioned Henry Heiberger in regards to the "defect" which was

located just below the lower edge of the collar, and which Dr. Humes

had stated was where a "control" sample was removed for testing, Henry

Heiberger informed me NO!

He stated that he took no "control" sample from below the lower edge

of the collar and would not have done so as this area was open to

contamination from such things as hair cream; makeup; etc which could

have contaiminated/compromised the test results.

After much discussions relative to the examination of the coat and

what had been "passed off/testified to" by Humes and Frazier, Henry

Heiberger informed me that if there was any doubts as to what areas of

JFK's coat were tested and where "control" samples were taken, that I

should obtain copies of his laboratory notes which he completed during

the testing/and examination of JFK's clothing and which notes were a

part of the official FBI records dealing with the assassination.

===========================================================================­====

========

Now, Mr. Dumbass Von Parrot, that is what Henry Heiberger personally

informed me of.

And, were you not such a Dumbass, then you would take the time and

effort to obtain Henry Heiberger's "working notes" in which you would

find that this portion of what Heiberger informed me was in exact

agreement with the notes which he prepared. (Unfortunately, Henry is

now deceased. But! Robert Frazier is not (at last accounting), so

one could contact him and probably get the same run-around as did I in

attempting to unravel this little obfuscation.)

Which notes demonstrate that the "CONTROL" for the higher elevation

bullet penetration/aka that penetration just below the lower edge of

the collar, was taken from UNDER the coat collar in an area which was

not normally subject to contamination exposure, and which location was

slightly to the left of the "defect/bullet penetration" which is

located just below the lower edge of the coat collar, slightly right

of center, and in direct alignment with the bullet penetration in

JFK's scalp which was located just above the lower edge of the

hairline.

Furthermore, had you bothered to conduct actual empirical research,

then you would have also found that Henry Heiberger received TWO

definitive "+" (for copper residue) results from his spectrographic

analysis work on JFK's coat.

One of these results is from the lower hole in the coat where CE399

entered, and the second "+" reading is from the UPPER hole located

just below the lower edge of the coat collar, which hole penetrated

the outer fabric of the coat as well as the inner liner of the coat on

an acute/obtuse angle.

Lastly, some of us here are not "Dumbass Von Parrots" who know only

how to repeat the BS of the WC and/or VB, and we actually know the

proper format for conducting research.

You should make an attempt to learn it and then try it some time. One

is far less likely to ultimately look BONEHEAD STUPID if they do so.

Tom Purvis

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In life, one should pay compliment to those persons (be they children or adults) who demonstrate excellence, in whatever category.

Conversely, one would assume that clearly demonstrated ignorance should also be fully recognized and pointed out to the individual, as well as, if necessary, "shouted from the rooftop".

Not so with children, as their brain has yet to fully develop to that extent to which we refer as the "rational thought process".

Adults are a completely different matter!

So goes the case of Mr. David Von Pein/aka David Von "Pinhead", as he has just been awarded my "Bonehead of the Year" award.

Wow! Your really going out on a limb here!

BB

Actually!

I have been "out on a limb" for a relatively decent interval of time and was once actually starting to get extremely lonely out here all alone.

Now, and in ever-increasing numbers, it is beginning to get quite crowded out here.

I take it that you missed that little episode in which the FBI as well as Attorney General of the US were "baited" into accepting documents relative to this issue.

Now that was a "good one", and it actually took considerable thought and preparation.

[John Bevilaqua]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

Problem is that he, and most other JFK researchers focusing on Dealey Plaza related issues, does not have a single identified suspect after almost 50 years. Not a single one. And bullet fragment analysis and autopsy analysis are doomed to failure on that score. Do you understand the difference between proving there was a "conspiracy" and identifying actual "conspirators"? Apparently 85% of the researchers do not.

"Guns and Gore can yield no more." I said that almost 20 years ago but some still have not gotten the message. And no one is going to reopen this friggen case. No one. Who is still alive who could be prosecuted and convicted? You let them all get away by doing the Johnny Most dance, the former Boston Celtics announcer: "...he fiddles and diddles". Name one living suspect and one living witness who could help convict them.

Edited May 11, 2009 by John Bevilaqua

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In life, one should pay compliment to those persons (be they children or adults) who demonstrate excellence, in whatever category.

Conversely, one would assume that clearly demonstrated ignorance should also be fully recognized and pointed out to the individual, as well as, if necessary, "shouted from the rooftop".

Not so with children, as their brain has yet to fully develop to that extent to which we refer as the "rational thought process".

Adults are a completely different matter!

So goes the case of Mr. David Von Pein/aka David Von "Pinhead", as he has just been awarded my "Bonehead of the Year" award.

Wow! Your really going out on a limb here!

BB

More for your reading enjoyment.

Be it for knowledge gained or merely another good laugh.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...fc28163cd77e8aa

The nice thing is that "History" will ultimately be the deciding

factor as to exactly who is the DUMBASS.

And, although the current trend is that anyone who actually believes

the WC as being the factual truths is an overall favorite to win any

such title, one should wait for the final outcome/final vote.

Which by the way, neither you nor I may actually live to see.

For those who wish a "sneak preview":

1. JFK was struck by all three of the shots fired from the sixth

floor window of the TSDB.

(exactly why would anyone even think otherwise?) (Hopefully not as a

result of the WC's mythological "THE SHOT THAT MISSED")

2. Shot#2/aka the Z313 impact is responsible for the "Cowlick" entry

across the top of the head/brain. A fragment from this round is what

struck JBC in the right wrist.

3. Shot#3/aka that impact which occurred some 30-feet farther down

Elm St, directly in front of James Altgens location, is the shot which

went (downward) through the coat of JFK after having struck just at

the lower edge of the coat collar, penetrated the coat on a downward

obtuse angle, and thereafter struck JFK in the lower edge of the

scalp, slightly above the lower edge of the hairline.

This bullet "tunnelled" downwards through the soft tissue at the base

of the neck to strike the skull of JFK in the EOP region at a point

which is higher (when the head is held erect/which it was not held at,

at time of impact) and thereafter penetrated through the mid-brain to

exit in the parietal-frontal lobe.

Thereafter, the intact bullet continued on, on it's downward

trajectory, to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay across

the open area of the jumpseats, exposing his right rear shoulder to

the trajectory of the bullet as it exited the head of JFK.

NOTE: anyone who has had even basic high-school trig can compute the

"angle of attack" at which the third shot struck JFK in the rear of

the head, based simply on the elongated (15mm length of the

penetration through his skull)

Which also happens to correlate with the acute/obtuse angle at which

the bullet went through the outer fabric as well as the inner liner of

the coat worn by JFK.

When one adds in the "tunnelling" effect which the bullet passage

conducted from entry point at the lower edge of the scalp, through the

soft tissue at the base of the skull, to striking the skull in the EOP

region,

This is a "gimmee"!

There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

Problem is that he, and most other JFK researchers focusing on Dealey Plaza related issues, does not have a single identified suspect after almost 50 years. Not a single one. And bullet fragment analysis and autopsy analysis are doomed to failure on that score. Do you understand the difference between proving there was a "conspiracy" and identifying actual "conspirators"? Apparently 85% of the researchers do not.

"Guns and Gore can yield no more." I said that almost 20 years ago but some still have not gotten the message. And no one is going to reopen this friggen case. No one. Who is still alive who could be prosecuted and convicted? You let them all get away by doing the Johnny Most dance, the former Boston Celtics announcer: "...he fiddles and diddles". Name one living suspect and one living witness who could help convict them.

Actually!

From this conversation it is quite apparant that some persons are totally unaware that in the case of a murder in which the body of the victim is available, the great majority of the time investigators must concentrate on and first off figure out exactly "how it was did", prior to attempting to figure out exactly "who did it'.

Not much use in hunting for a granny with knitting needles if the victim was cut to pieces with a chainsaw.

Of course, there are always those who can resolve nothing, and therefore chase everything.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

Problem is that he, and most other JFK researchers focusing on Dealey Plaza related issues, does not have a single identified suspect after almost 50 years. Not a single one. And bullet fragment analysis and autopsy analysis are doomed to failure on that score. Do you understand the difference between proving there was a "conspiracy" and identifying actual "conspirators"? Apparently 85% of the researchers do not.

"Guns and Gore can yield no more." I said that almost 20 years ago but some still have not gotten the message. And no one is going to reopen this friggen case. No one. Who is still alive who could be prosecuted and convicted? You let them all get away by doing the Johnny Most dance, the former Boston Celtics announcer: "...he fiddles and diddles". Name one living suspect and one living witness who could help convict them.

Actually!

From this conversation it is quite apparant that some persons are totally unaware that in the case of a murder in which the body of the victim is available, the great majority of the time investigators must concentrate on and first off figure out exactly "how it was did", prior to attempting to figure out exactly "who did it'.

Not much use in hunting for a granny with knitting needles if the victim was cut to pieces with a chainsaw.

Of course, there are always those who can resolve nothing, and therefore chase everything.

But then again, those of us's from these Mississippi swamps are relative "simple minded" as well, and therefore can neither think nor grasp these GIANT CONSPIRACIES which involve and include slightly over half of the US. Government; Organized Crime; Castro Cubans; Anti-Castro Cubans; multiple assassins; body snatchers; etc; etc; and possibly even some granny with a knitting needle.

Therefore, we have to take things one step at a time and deal with only the most simple and non-complex items and issues in order to avoid getting confused and lost in the maze.

Such as the WC's lie, which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination event.

So, resolving this issue only places one in a better position to actually look at potential rationale and reasons for the other two issues which by all available information also appears to have conspiratorial ramifications.

IE: The actual assassination.

&

The assassination of the assassin.

You know, in the possibility that each event has it's own rational and reason, yet one makes some continued attempt to tie them all together under a single "umbrella" of conspiracy, one could become lost and stay confused for say, 40-years or more.

And resolve nothing!

[John Bevilaqua]

This whole line of reasoning... rather questioning, is an example of what I call a wasted search for trivial binary truisms.

The exit strategy for this thread can only result in an answer to a blatantly obvious and trivial binary question:

Was there a conspiracy (1) or was there not a conspiracy (0)? Pick one.

Come on. I think we all know the answer to that patently obvious question. Spend more time on

uncovering who dunnit and why did they do it and maybe you can help to solve this continuing conundrum.

Sheesh!

I really couldn't disagree more, Toms work is an incredible example of what good solid research can accomplish. This work on its own could be enough to get the case reopened. We all owe Tom a debt of gratitude. Perhaps you could show us your accomplishments Mr Bevilaqua.

Problem is that he, and most other JFK researchers focusing on Dealey Plaza related issues, does not have a single identified suspect after almost 50 years. Not a single one. And bullet fragment analysis and autopsy analysis are doomed to failure on that score. Do you understand the difference between proving there was a "conspiracy" and identifying actual "conspirators"? Apparently 85% of the researchers do not.

"Guns and Gore can yield no more." I said that almost 20 years ago but some still have not gotten the message. And no one is going to reopen this friggen case. No one. Who is still alive who could be prosecuted and convicted? You let them all get away by doing the Johnny Most dance, the former Boston Celtics announcer: "...he fiddles and diddles". Name one living suspect and one living witness who could help convict them.

Actually!

From this conversation it is quite apparant that some persons are totally unaware that in the case of a murder in which the body of the victim is available, the great majority of the time investigators must concentrate on and first off figure out exactly "how it was did", prior to attempting to figure out exactly "who did it'.

Not much use in hunting for a granny with knitting needles if the victim was cut to pieces with a chainsaw.

Of course, there are always those who can resolve nothing, and therefore chase everything.

But then again, those of us's from these Mississippi swamps are relative "simple minded" as well, and therefore can neither think nor grasp these GIANT CONSPIRACIES which involve and include slightly over half of the US. Government; Organized Crime; Castro Cubans; Anti-Castro Cubans; multiple assassins; body snatchers; etc; etc; and possibly even some granny with a knitting needle.

Therefore, we have to take things one step at a time and deal with only the most simple and non-complex items and issues in order to avoid getting confused and lost in the maze.

Such as the WC's lie, which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination event.

So, resolving this issue only places one in a better position to actually look at potential rationale and reasons for the other two issues which by all available information also appears to have conspiratorial ramifications.

IE: The actual assassination.

&

The assassination of the assassin.

You know, in the possibility that each event has it's own rational and reason, yet one makes some continued attempt to tie them all together under a single "umbrella" of conspiracy, one could become lost and stay confused for say, 40-years or more.

And resolve nothing!

So what do you know, or anyone for that matter, about the roles of "The Ghosts of Mississippi" and The Pioneer Fund in

the plot to murder JFK? Check out the threads on Wickliffe Draper's role in funding the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission,

and the roles of James O. Easland and his nephew, Byron DeLa Beckwith in the murder of Medgar Evers, Jr. Or the role

of Theodor Bilbo of Mississippi with "Involuntary Sterilization" and Wickliffe Draper. Or the role of Mississippian Frank

Wisner with all of these people and "Mind Control". What do these 4 dates have in common: 7/22/63, 9/2/63, 1/15/64 and

6/2/64 and how do they relate to the MSC, Wickliffe Draper and acts of Civil Rights violence? While some prefer to spend

decades "fiddling and diddling" others have spent their time in the Mississippi Mud including 2009 Pulitzer Prize winning

author Douglas A. Blackmon from the Wall St. Journal finding "real suspects" and sending them to "real prisons". The answer

has been right under your nose for decades. Dump the Dealey Plaza leads and go to the MSC files and maybe you can

find something others have missed. I mean this in all sincerity even though I might sound like a mean but focused

investigator. If others had abandoned Guns and Gore decades ago, we could have caught some of these bastidges

decades ago. Really. Guns and Gore can yield no more. Really. Get focused and get finished and be on with it.

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/1/2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Knight said:

Bill, you have to understand that Tom didn't "invent" his theory of three shots, three hits. The Secret Service started with that, and had the points where the bullets hit the President mapped out on a survey of Dealy Plaza. Tom merely exposed the information that the SS already had, and then went about showing how the medical evidence supports the SS three-shot, three-hit scenario. Tom has also pointed out how the FBI began altering the survey data to support first their own implausible theory, and then finally the pure cock-and-bull of the WC's SBT.

In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing"of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand!

IMHO, Arlen Spector should've been hung for treason, rather than elected to the U. S. Senate!

Thanks Mark.

Question:  How realistic is it?

(IDK, myself.)

--  Toomby

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves