A "few" Facts

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Whereas actual factual evidence presentation by the forum's self-proclaimed "CSI" appears to be severely lacking, perhaps some of us dumb ole "swamp rats" from down here in South Mississippi could come up with something of relevance.

The attached photo is "JFK EXHIBIT F-24" from the HSCA Investigation into the assassination of JFK.

Fortunately, understanding of this does not require one to immediately run out to our local College/University/Police Academy/FBI Course, etc; in order to understand it.

There is a matching photo, which for all practical purposes, demonstrates how a bullet strike/impact to the human skin, at an exact 90-degree/right angle/perpendicular to the skin, merely makes a round hole in the skin.

This photo/drawing was made for the HSCA in order to demonstrate how a bullet striking the skin on an acute angle (less than 90-degrees) (or for that matter, any angle other than a right angle), creates an elongated entry wound.

This physical fact has considerable significance in relationship to the wounds of JFK as well as JBC, and anyone who had not fully studied this simple fact, can not place into perspective the wounds of the parties.

Of specific note is that the lower/obtuse angle side of the entry is rounded, whereas the upper/acute angle side of the entry is elongated.

This elongated side of the entry "B" is also what the forensic pathologists often refer to as the "abrasion collar" which helps define the angle of entry for the wound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

"impacted then entered President Kennedy 2 inches [50 mm] to the right of his spine, creating a wound documented size of 4 millimeters by 7 millimeters in the rear of his upper back with a red-brown to black area of skin surrounding the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar."

"This abrasion collar was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. This abrasion collar was photographically documented to be larger at the lower margin half of the wound, which is strong evidence that the bullet's long-axis orientation at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the plane of the skin immediately surrounding the wound"

The "abrasion collar" happens to be an important issue in resolution of the facts of the JFK assassination, and until one fully understands this, as well as other important aspects of the entry wound into the back of JFK, then it is most unlikely that one will understand the WC lie and/or the simple facts of the assassination.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

You seem to get a huge kick out of making inflammatory comments about other people on this forum. I've only been lurking/posting for a few months but in that time you and Brendan Slattery have been rude, insulting, condescending, and mean-spirited.

How do you expect people to listen to what you say and accept it with any degree of comity when you so blithely insult them with such enjoyment?

Don't you see that this uncontrolled behavior limits your effectiveness?

And if you don't care about your effectiveness, why do you post here?

If everybody but you is such a dope, why do you bother?

You seem to be a bright guy. But you're not the only bright guy.

Your posts have a lot of information in them but when you flame others, they just sound like the ravings of a crackpot.

Come on, man. Cool it.

You seem to get a huge kick out of making inflammatory comments about other people on this forum.

That I am aware, the content as well as context of this posting was directed at a singular individual who has to date, fully deserved each and every ridicule directed.

Since this individual took it upon himself long ago, on another forum, to begin this game, and thereafter brought it to this forum, then rest assured that I am more than willing to "play" and have absolutely no intentions of running from the likes of such ignorance of the facts.

Especially when such ignorance is displayed by someone who should at least have some of the qualifications necessary to place the evidence into some semblance of cohesion.

As regards the multiple assassin scenario's etc; rest assured that as one who states that there was in fact only a "Lone Assassin", and in all probability that assassin was LHO, rest assured that I have had to take my "lumps" on that one.

Were I some "candy-ass" who ran at the first sign of conflict and/or name calling such as "lone neuter" etc; etc; etc;, then it would stand as evidence that I am either unwilling to support my position or else have some fear that history will demonstrate that I am some type of idiot and am completely incorrect as regards the facts of the assassination.

I am neither.

Perhaps some of those who have been here for longer, just may inform you of exactly how much "new" information I may (or may not, whichever the case) have provided over the posting period.

The FACTS have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the messenger is an A-hole.

They continue to remain the facts!

And, so long as certain idiots make an attempt to discredit me and the research which I have done on the subject matter over the last considerable number of years, without providing any research whatsoever to support their statements and claims, then I will continue to point out a few of their inept qualifications as well.

Rest assured that I expect no one to believe what I have to say on the subject matter.

A good researcher will however check out the presented facts and question their validity to the extent of either personally conducting testing to determine for themselves, or else seeking out the input of absolutely qualified experts in the appropriate fields.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Whereas actual factual evidence presentation by the forum's self-proclaimed "CSI" appears to be severely lacking, perhaps some of us dumb ole "swamp rats" from down here in South Mississippi could come up with something of relevance.

The attached photo is "JFK EXHIBIT F-24" from the HSCA Investigation into the assassination of JFK.

Fortunately, understanding of this does not require one to immediately run out to our local College/University/Police Academy/FBI Course, etc; in order to understand it.

There is a matching photo, which for all practical purposes, demonstrates how a bullet strike/impact to the human skin, at an exact 90-degree/right angle/perpendicular to the skin, merely makes a round hole in the skin.

This photo/drawing was made for the HSCA in order to demonstrate how a bullet striking the skin on an acute angle (less than 90-degrees) (or for that matter, any angle other than a right angle), creates an elongated entry wound.

This physical fact has considerable significance in relationship to the wounds of JFK as well as JBC, and anyone who had not fully studied this simple fact, can not place into perspective the wounds of the parties.

Of specific note is that the lower/obtuse angle side of the entry is rounded, whereas the upper/acute angle side of the entry is elongated.

This elongated side of the entry "B" is also what the forensic pathologists often refer to as the "abrasion collar" which helps define the angle of entry for the wound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

"impacted then entered President Kennedy 2 inches [50 mm] to the right of his spine, creating a wound documented size of 4 millimeters by 7 millimeters in the rear of his upper back with a red-brown to black area of skin surrounding the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar."

"This abrasion collar was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. This abrasion collar was photographically documented to be larger at the lower margin half of the wound, which is strong evidence that the bullet's long-axis orientation at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the plane of the skin immediately surrounding the wound"

The "abrasion collar" happens to be an important issue in resolution of the facts of the JFK assassination, and until one fully understands this, as well as other important aspects of the entry wound into the back of JFK, then it is most unlikely that one will understand the WC lie and/or the simple facts of the assassination.

RED FLAG#1

"This abrasion collar was photographically documented to be larger at the lower margin half of the wound, which is strong evidence that the bullet's long-axis orientation at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the plane of the skin immediately surrounding the wound"

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

Of course, it was not until the HSCA Investigation that we actually learned this tidbit of information, and there are certainly those who argue the complete invalidity of the statement. However, this argument is based more on the purported physical inability of a bullet fired on a downward angle to create an "upward angle" abrasion collar, than it is by other aspects of the shot.

So, store one "RED FLAG" for later reference!

[Dawn Meredith]

I believe that kind of response you directed at him would work really well in a private email correspondence. This is a public forum, designed to be read by everyone. So whether or not it was deserved, it cheapens the atmosphere. Your anger is understandable and may be justified, but when it spills into the debate, reason goes out the window.

Bless you Mark. I have been begging people to keep their flaming to private emails since joining this forum almost 2 years ago.

I respectfully disagree. Were you a trial lawyer, you would learn very quickly that a jury will convict your client if they think YOU are an a-hole.

I am a trial lawyer and I can tell you you are 100% correct here.

Dawn

ps I find that ignoring this person's posts works well for me as it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who believes LHO acting alone killed JFK.

[John Dolva]

Mark, your position is understandable. The forum leader sets the guidelines and they do encourrage 'good behaviour'.

Facts do exist separate of the researcher who presents them. Over time, if they stand the scrutiny of peers, they may enter a courtroom, hopefully at this point presenmted by an always presentable lawyer.

Goodwill is a commodity in a forum such as this. It's useful, but doesn't change any facts. As far as ignoring those who who have unpalatable positions, here you are talking to a potential audience of millions, this silent majority also has input and evaluates what is said.

Separating the Facts from the person is not hard. Ultimately that is the responsibility of the reader if anything of value is there. Once extracted and used by others, in court or elsewhere, adding a qualifier like one and one makes two ACCORDING TO JOE BLOGGS, whom we all know has halitosis, fortunately does not make one and one any thing more or less than two.

It's 'facts' that is presented with sex appeal, glitz and authority, not unlike the ads on telly, or the official posittion packaged by the media that's the difficult forces to overcome. Try ignoring that?

___EDIT:: PS:: Tom a bullet at any time of its flight can present a range of attacks. Which one it had at the time of strike may be easy to suggest. Is it true that i'ts not that easy to from there to derive a trajectory. I would have thought that it would be a wider choice than what you suggest.

Edited June 21, 2006 by John Dolva

[Al Carrier]

Mark, Dawn and All,

Thank you for your postings here to Mr. Purvis. I am extremely tired of it and it is nice to see that I am not alone at being offended by his arrogance and rudeness and am going from being honored by his personal attacks to just tired of them.

He is from Mississippi and calling me a "podunk"??? Where a high school diploma is considered a masters degree???

Allow me this one dig please.

Back on track and I am directing this at the forum in general, not Mr. Purvis as I do not care to debate those who cannot intelligently or respectfully debate. What one must consider that is not being presented here in wound angle identification is not the mere contact, but also what the resistance is before contact with the skin and outer tissue. Some materials such as multi-layer cloth will grab the projectile and according to angle, can create greater resistance and compromise what the actual entrance wound will look like. While the skin is elastic even under penetration of such velocity of mid-range rifle trajectory, it will be compromised under certain conditions. While I have conducted my own tests to verify what is presented by the DOJ, and ammunition manufacturers, it would be easier and clearer to direct you to their websites instead of trying to post my own second rate photo attempts through scans or downloading the digitals. Remington, Winchester and Federal have available on the web penetration shots into gelatin blocks showing various angles of penetration through foreign substances. It also shows how the projectile is effected through these penetrations and how the dispersion of energy varies due to ranges of yawing of the projectile.

Al

[Thomas H. Purvis]

>>That I am aware, the content as well as context of this posting was directed at a singular individual who has to date, fully deserved each and every ridicule directed.

I believe that kind of response you directed at him would work really well in a private email correspondence. This is a public forum, designed to be read by everyone. So whether or not it was deserved, it cheapens the atmosphere. Your anger is understandable and may be justified, but when it spills into the debate, reason goes out the window.

>>Perhaps some of those who have been here for longer, just may inform you of exactly how much "new" information I may (or may not, whichever the case) have provided over the posting period.

All I'm saying is that regardless of what facts you have brought, for whatever period of time, your tone is distracting. In my opinion, if you want to be effective, if you want to change minds and hearts, you might consider how you say things. If you don't care about changing minds and hearts, then why post in public?

>>>The FACTS have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the messenger is an A-hole.

They continue to remain the facts!

I respectfully disagree. Were you a trial lawyer, you would learn very quickly that a jury will convict your client if they think YOU are an a-hole.

>>And, so long as certain idiots make an attempt to discredit me and the research which I have done on the subject matter over the last considerable number of years, without providing any research whatsoever to support their statements and claims, then I will continue to point out a few of their inept qualifications as well.

I support your efforts, no matter where they lead you, as I do the others on this forum. But the distraction of leaping past some of the school-yard taunting and careless invective does *nothing* to move the discussion forward.

At any rate, I've had my say and I won't inject any more schoolmarm advice. I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Thanks.

I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Who could ask for anything more.

Tom

P.S. I am not a "trial lawyer" who is attempting to either convict or acquit a client based on some psuedo-presentation of how nice a person he may be, or how he may have some career past which is evil.

Far too many convictions are achieved on this basis, as well as far too many guilty persons being freed.

There has long been more than adequate factual evidence to understand the JFK assassination.

However, one can rest assured that so long as one is chasing body kidnappers and/or multiple assassins, then they will not recognized the factual evidence when it is seen.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

>>That I am aware, the content as well as context of this posting was directed at a singular individual who has to date, fully deserved each and every ridicule directed.

I believe that kind of response you directed at him would work really well in a private email correspondence. This is a public forum, designed to be read by everyone. So whether or not it was deserved, it cheapens the atmosphere. Your anger is understandable and may be justified, but when it spills into the debate, reason goes out the window.

>>Perhaps some of those who have been here for longer, just may inform you of exactly how much "new" information I may (or may not, whichever the case) have provided over the posting period.

All I'm saying is that regardless of what facts you have brought, for whatever period of time, your tone is distracting. In my opinion, if you want to be effective, if you want to change minds and hearts, you might consider how you say things. If you don't care about changing minds and hearts, then why post in public?

>>>The FACTS have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the messenger is an A-hole.

They continue to remain the facts!

I respectfully disagree. Were you a trial lawyer, you would learn very quickly that a jury will convict your client if they think YOU are an a-hole.

>>And, so long as certain idiots make an attempt to discredit me and the research which I have done on the subject matter over the last considerable number of years, without providing any research whatsoever to support their statements and claims, then I will continue to point out a few of their inept qualifications as well.

I support your efforts, no matter where they lead you, as I do the others on this forum. But the distraction of leaping past some of the school-yard taunting and careless invective does *nothing* to move the discussion forward.

At any rate, I've had my say and I won't inject any more schoolmarm advice. I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Thanks.

I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Who could ask for anything more.

Tom

P.S. I am not a "trial lawyer" who is attempting to either convict or acquit a client based on some psuedo-presentation of how nice a person he may be, or how he may have some career past which is evil.

Far too many convictions are achieved on this basis, as well as far too many guilty persons being freed.

There has long been more than adequate factual evidence to understand the JFK assassination.

However, one can rest assured that so long as one is chasing body kidnappers and/or multiple assassins, then they will not recognized the factual evidence when it is seen.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

>>That I am aware, the content as well as context of this posting was directed at a singular individual who has to date, fully deserved each and every ridicule directed.

I believe that kind of response you directed at him would work really well in a private email correspondence. This is a public forum, designed to be read by everyone. So whether or not it was deserved, it cheapens the atmosphere. Your anger is understandable and may be justified, but when it spills into the debate, reason goes out the window.

>>Perhaps some of those who have been here for longer, just may inform you of exactly how much "new" information I may (or may not, whichever the case) have provided over the posting period.

All I'm saying is that regardless of what facts you have brought, for whatever period of time, your tone is distracting. In my opinion, if you want to be effective, if you want to change minds and hearts, you might consider how you say things. If you don't care about changing minds and hearts, then why post in public?

>>>The FACTS have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the messenger is an A-hole.

They continue to remain the facts!

I respectfully disagree. Were you a trial lawyer, you would learn very quickly that a jury will convict your client if they think YOU are an a-hole.

>>And, so long as certain idiots make an attempt to discredit me and the research which I have done on the subject matter over the last considerable number of years, without providing any research whatsoever to support their statements and claims, then I will continue to point out a few of their inept qualifications as well.

I support your efforts, no matter where they lead you, as I do the others on this forum. But the distraction of leaping past some of the school-yard taunting and careless invective does *nothing* to move the discussion forward.

At any rate, I've had my say and I won't inject any more schoolmarm advice. I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Thanks.

I look forward to the continuation of the discussion of facts.

Who could ask for anything more?

Tom

P.S. I am not a "trial lawyer" who is attempting to either get a client off/found not-guilty based on some psuedo-presentation of how nice may be, nor am I a prosecuting attorney who is attempting to gain a conviction based on how terrible the person may be whom I am attempting to convict.

I am merely attempting to present a few facts of the case, and thereafter let the chips fall where they may.

However, as most can see, I am frequently distracted by those who expouse BS, while providing absolutely no factual evidence to support same, and must thereafter take on the role of John McAdams as the "debunker", in order to demonstrate that for the most part, these persons do not know of what they speak.

I believe that kind of response you directed at him would work really well in a private email correspondence. This is a public forum, designed to be read by everyone. So whether or not it was deserved, it cheapens the atmosphere. Your anger is understandable and may be justified, but when it spills into the debate, reason goes out the window.

Bless you Mark. I have been begging people to keep their flaming to private emails since joining this forum almost 2 years ago.

I respectfully disagree. Were you a trial lawyer, you would learn very quickly that a jury will convict your client if they think YOU are an a-hole.

I am a trial lawyer and I can tell you you are 100% correct here.

Dawn

ps I find that ignoring this person's posts works well for me as it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who believes LHO acting alone killed JFK.

it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who believes LHO acting alone killed JFK.

For a "trial lawyer", you certainly missed out on some critical information!

A "Lone Assassin" has no bearing on whether the person acted alone in regards to a potential conspiracy to assassinate.

It merely means that a "lone/single" person pulled the trigger.

Mark, your position is understandable. The forum leader sets the guidelines and they do encourrage 'good behaviour'.

Facts do exist separate of the researcher who presents them. Over time, if they stand the scrutiny of peers, they may enter a courtroom, hopefully at this point presenmted by an always presentable lawyer.

Goodwill is a commodity in a forum such as this. It's useful, but doesn't change any facts. As far as ignoring those who who have unpalatable positions, here you are talking to a potential audience of millions, this silent majority also has input and evaluates what is said.

Separating the Facts from the person is not hard. Ultimately that is the responsibility of the reader if anything of value is there. Once extracted and used by others, in court or elsewhere, adding a qualifier like one and one makes two ACCORDING TO JOE BLOGGS, whom we all know has halitosis, fortunately does not make one and one any thing more or less than two.

It's 'facts' that is presented with sex appeal, glitz and authority, not unlike the ads on telly, or the official posittion packaged by the media that's the difficult forces to overcome. Try ignoring that?

___EDIT:: PS:: Tom a bullet at any time of its flight can present a range of attacks. Which one it had at the time of strike may be easy to suggest. Is it true that i'ts not that easy to from there to derive a trajectory. I would have thought that it would be a wider choice than what you suggest.

EDIT:: PS:: Tom a bullet at any time of its flight can present a range of attacks. Which one it had at the time of strike may be easy to suggest. Is it true that i'ts not that easy to from there to derive a trajectory. I would have thought that it would be a wider choice than what you suggest.

One most certainly must learn to walk before they attempt to fly!

Merely establishing a few of the "simple" basic facts before expounding on anything of great significance.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A quick and simple view of the elongated nature of a wound incurred in an other than perpendicular strike, can be examined by mere rotation of the wound photo from the HSCA.

In each instance, "B" represents the abrasion collar, and as can be seen, for a true downward angle of fire, this abrasion collar should be at the top and thus the wound is elongated "Vertically".

For an upward angle of fire, the abrasion collar "B" is located at the bottom of the entrance wound, and the wound is elongated downward.

For a sideways strike/sideways angle of fire, in which direction of flight of the bullet is from right to left, then the wound is elongated horizontally with the abrasion collar located on the right side of the wound.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Then, of course, we have the "perpendicular to" strike in which the bullet strikes at an exact 90-degrees perpendicular to the plane of the target.

And, although these drawings would make one believe that the bullet leaves a nice round hole in the skin, this is not the case when striking soft flesh/tissue.

As example, provided is a typical 6.5mm entrance wound in which it can be seen that there is little actual skin removed.

The elasticity of the skin allows it to give, and then tear radially as the bullet enters, thus allowing very little of the skin surface to be actually removed by the bullet.

[John Dolva]

Tom, one question that has been nagging at me that I hope you could cover at some point is (see diagram) if the bullet is travelling directly from the viewer here but happens to have an attack something like this, for some reason, at the moment of impact. In striking a perpendicular surface (perpendicular to the trajectory) through cloth , skin etc. What would the wound look like?

EDIT:: post modified to remove a possible ambiguity

Edited June 22, 2006 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, one question that has been nagging at me that I hope you could cover at some point is (see diagram) if the bullet is travelling directly from the viewer here but happens to have an attack something like this, for some reason, at the moment of impact. In striking a perpendicular through cloth , skin etc. What would the wound look like?

The actual photograph in the previous posting was fired perpendicular to the target, and the target was covered with a shirt as well as a coat.

The abrasion collar will remain even when the target is covered with clothing as the actual dimension of the wound must correlate to the cross sectional area of the target through which the bullet must pass, based on the acuteness of the angle of strike.

As the angle increases, the cross-sectional surface area of the target through which the bullet must pass increases.

Seldom does the bullet actually fully remove most of this skin, yet it must force it back and out of the way in order for the bullet to pass through.

I will make a drawing in event it will help to fully explain.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, one question that has been nagging at me that I hope you could cover at some point is (see diagram) if the bullet is travelling directly from the viewer here but happens to have an attack something like this, for some reason, at the moment of impact. In striking a perpendicular through cloth , skin etc. What would the wound look like?

The actual photograph in the previous posting was fired perpendicular to the target, and the target was covered with a shirt as well as a coat.

The abrasion collar will remain even when the target is covered with clothing as the actual dimension of the wound must correlate to the cross sectional area of the target through which the bullet must pass, based on the acuteness of the angle of strike.

As the angle increases, the cross-sectional surface area of the target through which the bullet must pass increases.

Seldom does the bullet actually fully remove most of this skin, yet it must force it back and out of the way in order for the bullet to pass through.

I will make a drawing in event it will help to fully explain.

Tom

Since a photograph and/or drawing is considerably better than someone running their mouth, perhaps the following attachment will be of some assistance.

This drawing should assist in demonstration as to how the "abrasion collar" on the skin can result in the elongated nature of the wound.

And, when it comes to passing through the bones of the skull, the bullet must remove that portion of the cross-sectional area as demonstrated.

In that regards, one should pay especially close attention to the 6mm X 15mm entry wound which the autopsy surgeons found in the skull of JFK in the vicinity of the EOP, as well as a determination of exactly what "angle of attack" the bullet would have had to have in passing through the skull/brain of JFK on an upwards and slanting left position as indicated by Dr. Boswell in his autopsy description sheet.

[Bill Miller]

Then, of course, we have the "perpendicular to" strike in which the bullet strikes at an exact 90-degrees perpendicular to the plane of the target.

And, although these drawings would make one believe that the bullet leaves a nice round hole in the skin, this is not the case when striking soft flesh/tissue.

As example, provided is a typical 6.5mm entrance wound in which it can be seen that there is little actual skin removed.

The elasticity of the skin allows it to give, and then tear radially as the bullet enters, thus allowing very little of the skin surface to be actually removed by the bullet.

Purvy,

I like how your illustration in post #14 shows how a bullet entering the body will push what it penetrates INWARD, thus what it does leaving the body will push that surface OUTWARD. It certainly addresses the sprung opened bones on the back of JFK's head quite nicely.

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Edited June 22, 2006 by Bill Miller