Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Bullet--7 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-8 It is quite the shame that with all of these quasi-experts in the fields of ballistics, etc; that none of them have ever taken the time to explain the loss of weight to a bullet from merely having been fired. Not to mention the trouble and expense of obtaining virtually identical rifles and ammunition with which to conduct and present this testing. But then again, "doubting Thomas", rest assured, is going to evaluate the facts and evidence for himself. Far more likely to not be confused and mis-guided when evaluation of the facts is done in this manner. Besides being the proper method of conducting research. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As one is no doubt aware, many of the "experts" continously refer to CE#399 as being "Pristine", etc;. Rest assured, this bullet is far from such. Again, were I to call this bullet "Pristine", then I most assuredly would not want to include the attached listing of deformation and anomalies which the bullet actually possesses. But again, what the H*** do I know on the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 (edited) Bullet--7 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-8 It is quite the shame that with all of these quasi-experts in the fields of ballistics, etc; that none of them have ever taken the time to explain the loss of weight to a bullet from merely having been fired. Not to mention the trouble and expense of obtaining virtually identical rifles and ammunition with which to conduct and present this testing. But then again, "doubting Thomas", rest assured, is going to evaluate the facts and evidence for himself. Far more likely to not be confused and mis-guided when evaluation of the facts is done in this manner. Besides being the proper method of conducting research. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As stated previously, these documents were written well prior to release of the JFK records by the JFK Records Act. Therefore, at the time which this was written, there was no means available to ascertain at what period the portion of the copper jacket of CE# 399 which covers a portion of the bullet base/lead core was removed. Although I discussed this subject extensively with FBI Agent Gallagher and Agent Frazier, and both informed me that there was no such alteration to the bullet when they had examined it, this still was not confirmation. Confirmation that this portion of the copper jacket was present when the bullet was weighed by Agent Frazier came with the relase of those formerly held photographs of the bullet which were made when the bullet was turned over to the National Archives. Thereby confirming that what Agent Frazier and Agent Gallagher told me had been truthful. Therefore, the removal of the portion of the copper jacket at the bullet base takes on another light, and it's purpose must be examined in relationship to other items related to the bullet. Tom Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Frazier Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Frazier <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-10 Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Frazier <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-10 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet 11 Edited August 5, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Bullet--7 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-8 It is quite the shame that with all of these quasi-experts in the fields of ballistics, etc; that none of them have ever taken the time to explain the loss of weight to a bullet from merely having been fired. Not to mention the trouble and expense of obtaining virtually identical rifles and ammunition with which to conduct and present this testing. But then again, "doubting Thomas", rest assured, is going to evaluate the facts and evidence for himself. Far more likely to not be confused and mis-guided when evaluation of the facts is done in this manner. Besides being the proper method of conducting research. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As stated previously, these documents were written well prior to release of the JFK records by the JFK Records Act. Therefore, at the time which this was written, there was no means available to ascertain at what period the portion of the copper jacket of CE# 399 which covers a portion of the bullet base/lead core was removed. Although I discussed this subject extensively with FBI Agent Gallagher and Agent Frazier, and both informed me that there was no such alteration to the bullet when they had examined it, this still was not confirmation. Confirmation that this portion of the copper jacket was present when the bullet was weighed by Agent Frazier came with the relase of those formerly held photographs of the bullet which were made when the bullet was turned over to the National Archives. Thereby confirming that what Agent Frazier and Agent Gallagher told me had been truthful. Therefore, the removal of the portion of the copper jacket at the bullet base takes on another light, and it's purpose must be examined in relationship to other items related to the bullet. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The two small slices removed from the nose of the copper jacket WERE NOT removed for any spectrographic testing. To date, it remains unknown as to who cut and removed this portion of the bullet, or why. Frazier did not do it, and the only other FBI Agent to physically examine this bullet was Gallagher and he claims that he did not do it and had no reason to have done it. He indicated that one does not have to run spectrographic analysis on copper in order to prove that it is copper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Frazier <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-10 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet 11 The top photograph is of course the base of CE#399 which demonstrates the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the lead core of the bullet. The bottom photograph is of a normal WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base which demonstrates the 4.5mm wide, oval portion of the lead core as well as the portion of the copper jacket which crimps back over a portion of the bullet base, around the circumference of the base of the bullet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussion on missing base to bullet. Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Frazier <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-10 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet 11 The top photograph is of course the base of CE#399 which demonstrates the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the lead core of the bullet. The bottom photograph is of a normal WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base which demonstrates the 4.5mm wide, oval portion of the lead core as well as the portion of the copper jacket which crimps back over a portion of the bullet base, around the circumference of the base of the bullet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussion on missing base to bullet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussin continued on missing copper jacket at base of bullet Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Frazier <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet-10 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bullet 11 The top photograph is of course the base of CE#399 which demonstrates the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the lead core of the bullet. The bottom photograph is of a normal WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base which demonstrates the 4.5mm wide, oval portion of the lead core as well as the portion of the copper jacket which crimps back over a portion of the bullet base, around the circumference of the base of the bullet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussion on missing base to bullet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussin continued on missing copper jacket at base of bullet <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have added a few additional drawings and photographs during editing. That about wraps it up for "THE BULLET". Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the limited research which I have conducted in regards to the NAA work, the copper jacket was not removed by Dr. Guinn. Somewhere, I have some notes in which is indicated that Dr. Guinn merely removed a small "core" from the center of the bullet at the base. This core/drill hole is clearly observed in the HSCA photograph of the bullet (JFK Exhibit F-102) and is in the exact same location as where Gallagher initially removed a small sample of lead from the bullet base, as can now be seen in the FBI/National Archives photo of the base of the bullet. With the photo's, a somewhat limited history of the base of the bullet can be placed into perspective. 1. The FBI/NA photo demonstrates the base portion of the copper jacket as being present, and a small, slightly irregular hole in the base of the lead core. This irreguler hole, is, from my discussions with FBI Agent Gallagher, where he removed an extremely small sample from the base of the bullet for testing. This depression/removal area is quite irregular and although I now wish that I had asked what type tool he utilized to remove the lead, my blinders were fully concentrated on the missing copper jacket. 2. The next photo of the bullet base, the enlarged photo which shows the copper jacket missing, also shows this area of removal of lead as done by Gallagher. Again, this is not a "core". 3. Lastly, the HSCA photo demonstrates the base of the bullet with what is now a perfect "circle"/cored out area in the previous area of where Gallagher had removed a portion. The HSCA photo was reportedly taken shortly after receipt of CE399 from the National Archives. To date, no person can be found who removed this portion of the bullet. Just as no person can be found who actually cut the small slices into the nose of the bullet. There are several "speculative reasons" for this manipulation of the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 (edited) Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the limited research which I have conducted in regards to the NAA work, the copper jacket was not removed by Dr. Guinn. Somewhere, I have some notes in which is indicated that Dr. Guinn merely removed a small "core" from the center of the bullet at the base. This core/drill hole is clearly observed in the HSCA photograph of the bullet (JFK Exhibit F-102) and is in the exact same location as where Gallagher initially removed a small sample of lead from the bullet base, as can now be seen in the FBI/National Archives photo of the base of the bullet. With the photo's, a somewhat limited history of the base of the bullet can be placed into perspective. 1. The FBI/NA photo demonstrates the base portion of the copper jacket as being present, and a small, slightly irregular hole in the base of the lead core. This irreguler hole, is, from my discussions with FBI Agent Gallagher, where he removed an extremely small sample from the base of the bullet for testing. This depression/removal area is quite irregular and although I now wish that I had asked what type tool he utilized to remove the lead, my blinders were fully concentrated on the missing copper jacket. 2. The next photo of the bullet base, the enlarged photo which shows the copper jacket missing, also shows this area of removal of lead as done by Gallagher. Again, this is not a "core". 3. Lastly, the HSCA photo demonstrates the base of the bullet with what is now a perfect "circle"/cored out area in the previous area of where Gallagher had removed a portion. The HSCA photo was reportedly taken shortly after receipt of CE399 from the National Archives. To date, no person can be found who removed this portion of the bullet. Just as no person can be found who actually cut the small slices into the nose of the bullet. There are several "speculative reasons" for this manipulation of the evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since this topic has been started, may as well finish other aspects of "The Bullet" here as well. "I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same". James R. Looney Firearms & Toolmark Examiner Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The data on CE#399 as well as all results of ballistic comparison testing was presented to Mr. Looney for his review in determination of the anomalies to CE#399. Mr. Looney basically stated that there was little use in his wasting his time in going out to "re-prove" what the results of my ballistic work had already demonstrated. As another avenue, this same information was presented to Former FBI Agent James Worrell, who basically stated: "What you have here is fact". Edited August 6, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 (edited) Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the limited research which I have conducted in regards to the NAA work, the copper jacket was not removed by Dr. Guinn. Somewhere, I have some notes in which is indicated that Dr. Guinn merely removed a small "core" from the center of the bullet at the base. This core/drill hole is clearly observed in the HSCA photograph of the bullet (JFK Exhibit F-102) and is in the exact same location as where Gallagher initially removed a small sample of lead from the bullet base, as can now be seen in the FBI/National Archives photo of the base of the bullet. With the photo's, a somewhat limited history of the base of the bullet can be placed into perspective. 1. The FBI/NA photo demonstrates the base portion of the copper jacket as being present, and a small, slightly irregular hole in the base of the lead core. This irreguler hole, is, from my discussions with FBI Agent Gallagher, where he removed an extremely small sample from the base of the bullet for testing. This depression/removal area is quite irregular and although I now wish that I had asked what type tool he utilized to remove the lead, my blinders were fully concentrated on the missing copper jacket. 2. The next photo of the bullet base, the enlarged photo which shows the copper jacket missing, also shows this area of removal of lead as done by Gallagher. Again, this is not a "core". 3. Lastly, the HSCA photo demonstrates the base of the bullet with what is now a perfect "circle"/cored out area in the previous area of where Gallagher had removed a portion. The HSCA photo was reportedly taken shortly after receipt of CE399 from the National Archives. To date, no person can be found who removed this portion of the bullet. Just as no person can be found who actually cut the small slices into the nose of the bullet. There are several "speculative reasons" for this manipulation of the evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since this topic has been started, may as well finish other aspects of "The Bullet" here as well. "I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same". James R. Looney Firearms & Toolmark Examiner Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The data on CE#399 as well as all results of ballistic comparison testing was presented to Mr. Looney for his review in determination of the anomalies to CE#399. Mr. Looney basically stated that there was little use in his wasting his time in going out to "re-prove" what the results of my ballistic work had already demonstrated. As another avenue, this same information was presented to Former FBI Agent James Worrell, who basically stated: "What you have here is fact". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Time to talk about tree limb removal by the WC Edited August 7, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the limited research which I have conducted in regards to the NAA work, the copper jacket was not removed by Dr. Guinn. Somewhere, I have some notes in which is indicated that Dr. Guinn merely removed a small "core" from the center of the bullet at the base. This core/drill hole is clearly observed in the HSCA photograph of the bullet (JFK Exhibit F-102) and is in the exact same location as where Gallagher initially removed a small sample of lead from the bullet base, as can now be seen in the FBI/National Archives photo of the base of the bullet. With the photo's, a somewhat limited history of the base of the bullet can be placed into perspective. 1. The FBI/NA photo demonstrates the base portion of the copper jacket as being present, and a small, slightly irregular hole in the base of the lead core. This irreguler hole, is, from my discussions with FBI Agent Gallagher, where he removed an extremely small sample from the base of the bullet for testing. This depression/removal area is quite irregular and although I now wish that I had asked what type tool he utilized to remove the lead, my blinders were fully concentrated on the missing copper jacket. 2. The next photo of the bullet base, the enlarged photo which shows the copper jacket missing, also shows this area of removal of lead as done by Gallagher. Again, this is not a "core". 3. Lastly, the HSCA photo demonstrates the base of the bullet with what is now a perfect "circle"/cored out area in the previous area of where Gallagher had removed a portion. The HSCA photo was reportedly taken shortly after receipt of CE399 from the National Archives. To date, no person can be found who removed this portion of the bullet. Just as no person can be found who actually cut the small slices into the nose of the bullet. There are several "speculative reasons" for this manipulation of the evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since this topic has been started, may as well finish other aspects of "The Bullet" here as well. "I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same". James R. Looney Firearms & Toolmark Examiner Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The data on CE#399 as well as all results of ballistic comparison testing was presented to Mr. Looney for his review in determination of the anomalies to CE#399. Mr. Looney basically stated that there was little use in his wasting his time in going out to "re-prove" what the results of my ballistic work had already demonstrated. As another avenue, this same information was presented to Former FBI Agent James Worrell, who basically stated: "What you have here is fact". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Time to talk about tree limb removal by the WC <{POST_SNAPBACK}> During my initial visit to the home of Mr. Robert West in Dallas, TX, I was at the time fully aware of how CE399 had come to exist. However, as previously discussed, it was unknown as to whether Mr. West was a part of the WC misrepresentation of the facts/lie/coverup (whatever one wishes to call it). After length discussion with Mr. West, it became quite apparant that he was in no way involved in any of this. Thereafter, we began to discuss aspects of what the WC had done and I began to explain the reasoning behind it. When I got to that portion related to CE399 and what much of this was for, he certainly gave a good laugh. Thereafter, he informed me of having observed members of the WC re-enactment group in the process of cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the live oak tree which is located directly in front of the TSDB. Mr. West relayed that although the WC re-enactment work was in fact completed on May 24, 1963, his work was not completed. On the morning of May 25, 1963, he (Mr. West) had returned to Dealy Plaza in order to get some additional information and measurements which were required in order to complete the Survey Plat. This information was relative to concrete structures, etc. Upon entering Dealy Plaza, he observed members of the WC re-enactment group. These persons had one of the "high-lift" buckets on a truck and they were up in the top of the Live Oak tree which is directly in front of the TSDB. And, they were cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the tree. With this information, I thereafter knew that it was hopeless and would be a waste of time to find the limb through which CE399 had obviously passed. Now, back to the WC obfuscation and misrepresentation. Previously, CE887 was mentioned. This was the "jacked up" position of the rifle in the TSDB sixth floor window. Also, I have described the "adjusted position" in which the aiming point of the rifle was always on the head of the JFK stand in, of which position was in fact some 10 inches higher than was that of JFK. With the jacked up rifle in the window, and an aiming point which was some 10 inches higher than was the actual aiming point of JFK, the WC was able to create their "illusionary" re-enactment photo's which demonstrated that no tree limbs could have been in the way to interfere with the bullet path of the first shot fired. As with all things, there is a reason! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 9, 2005 Author Share Posted August 9, 2005 (edited) Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the limited research which I have conducted in regards to the NAA work, the copper jacket was not removed by Dr. Guinn. Somewhere, I have some notes in which is indicated that Dr. Guinn merely removed a small "core" from the center of the bullet at the base. This core/drill hole is clearly observed in the HSCA photograph of the bullet (JFK Exhibit F-102) and is in the exact same location as where Gallagher initially removed a small sample of lead from the bullet base, as can now be seen in the FBI/National Archives photo of the base of the bullet. With the photo's, a somewhat limited history of the base of the bullet can be placed into perspective. 1. The FBI/NA photo demonstrates the base portion of the copper jacket as being present, and a small, slightly irregular hole in the base of the lead core. This irreguler hole, is, from my discussions with FBI Agent Gallagher, where he removed an extremely small sample from the base of the bullet for testing. This depression/removal area is quite irregular and although I now wish that I had asked what type tool he utilized to remove the lead, my blinders were fully concentrated on the missing copper jacket. 2. The next photo of the bullet base, the enlarged photo which shows the copper jacket missing, also shows this area of removal of lead as done by Gallagher. Again, this is not a "core". 3. Lastly, the HSCA photo demonstrates the base of the bullet with what is now a perfect "circle"/cored out area in the previous area of where Gallagher had removed a portion. The HSCA photo was reportedly taken shortly after receipt of CE399 from the National Archives. To date, no person can be found who removed this portion of the bullet. Just as no person can be found who actually cut the small slices into the nose of the bullet. There are several "speculative reasons" for this manipulation of the evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since this topic has been started, may as well finish other aspects of "The Bullet" here as well. "I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same". James R. Looney Firearms & Toolmark Examiner Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The data on CE#399 as well as all results of ballistic comparison testing was presented to Mr. Looney for his review in determination of the anomalies to CE#399. Mr. Looney basically stated that there was little use in his wasting his time in going out to "re-prove" what the results of my ballistic work had already demonstrated. As another avenue, this same information was presented to Former FBI Agent James Worrell, who basically stated: "What you have here is fact". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Time to talk about tree limb removal by the WC <{POST_SNAPBACK}> During my initial visit to the home of Mr. Robert West in Dallas, TX, I was at the time fully aware of how CE399 had come to exist. However, as previously discussed, it was unknown as to whether Mr. West was a part of the WC misrepresentation of the facts/lie/coverup (whatever one wishes to call it). After length discussion with Mr. West, it became quite apparant that he was in no way involved in any of this. Thereafter, we began to discuss aspects of what the WC had done and I began to explain the reasoning behind it. When I got to that portion related to CE399 and what much of this was for, he certainly gave a good laugh. Thereafter, he informed me of having observed members of the WC re-enactment group in the process of cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the live oak tree which is located directly in front of the TSDB. Mr. West relayed that although the WC re-enactment work was in fact completed on May 24, 1963, his work was not completed. On the morning of May 25, 1963, he (Mr. West) had returned to Dealy Plaza in order to get some additional information and measurements which were required in order to complete the Survey Plat. This information was relative to concrete structures, etc. Upon entering Dealy Plaza, he observed members of the WC re-enactment group. These persons had one of the "high-lift" buckets on a truck and they were up in the top of the Live Oak tree which is directly in front of the TSDB. And, they were cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the tree. With this information, I thereafter knew that it was hopeless and would be a waste of time to find the limb through which CE399 had obviously passed. Now, back to the WC obfuscation and misrepresentation. Previously, CE887 was mentioned. This was the "jacked up" position of the rifle in the TSDB sixth floor window. Also, I have described the "adjusted position" in which the aiming point of the rifle was always on the head of the JFK stand in, of which position was in fact some 10 inches higher than was that of JFK. With the jacked up rifle in the window, and an aiming point which was some 10 inches higher than was the actual aiming point of JFK, the WC was able to create their "illusionary" re-enactment photo's which demonstrated that no tree limbs could have been in the way to interfere with the bullet path of the first shot fired. As with all things, there is a reason! Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The first time that the base of CE399 was observed by me in 1988, it was easily recognizable that a portion of the copper jacket was missing to this bullet. Even my "non-claim" in expertise told me this. As to why others who claim to be experts have not informed readers, one will have to ask them that question. For whatever reason, from the time of the assassination, up until 1991, this was not an item of general public knowledge. And, since I found it in 1988, the "experts" have had almost 17 additional years in which to find and inform the general public of this alteration to CE399. Nevertheless, they have not informed you, so not unlike the altered survey data evidence, one can read and judge for themselves. Edited August 9, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis 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