First Shot/aka CE399

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps another "walk through" is called for!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

First Shot!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

First Shot!

Of course, one would be remiss were they to not explain how the end-over-end rotational inertia of a tumbling bullet, striking in a base first attitude, would cause the bullet to ultimate drive itself down into soft tissue on a considerably different angle than the actual downward trajectory.

And, although many are aware of the 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry as reported by the autopsy surgeons, most, have done little other than criticize the autopsy surgeons as to the impossibility of such an angle of entry.

Actually, not only was it possible, but also highly probable when all of the other evidence is taken into consideration.

And, failure to understand how something occurred is usually the fault of the person who does not understand and has placed "blinders" on his ability to do so. Not the persons providing the information.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In attempt to determine any validity to the "base first" strike to the back/upper neck of JFK, one would of necessity want to determine the size/characteristics of the base of CE399, and thereafter compare this with the entry holes in the clothing worn by JFK.

Thereafter, one should also make comparison of the clothing entry hole which is attributed to CE399 and compare this entry hole with a "known" example of an entry created by a normal "nose first" striking bullet.

In that regards, one merely has to think "paper punch" in order to recognize the potential validity.

And of course, the fact that the back/upper neck wound of JFK had considerable fabric carried into the wound by the entering bullet is another of those "anomalies" which one must take into consideration.

Especially when it happens to be a forensic, ballistic, and pathological fact that a normal entering bullet DOES NOT remove fabric from the clothing and carry it into the wound.

Again: Think Paper Punch!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

After having looked at the evidence relative to the bullet entrance holes through the coat and shirt of JFK, it would obviously be prudent for one to proceed to the bullet entrance wound in the back upper neck.

This would seem to be a "most logical" approach. Especially since Dr. Boswell is on record as having stated the "atypical" nature of the wound.

And Dr. Humes is on record as having described the relatively "clean cut" edges to the wound.

And the original handwritten notes of Dr. Humes contained the wording 4mm X 7mm oval puncture wound.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0030a.htm

At this point in the examination of the facts, most would recognize that there is a considerable amount in common with an "oval" puncture wound which measures "4mm X 7mm" and the deformed base to a bullet (CE399) which is also "oval" and measures "4mm X 7mm".

And then when one takes into consideration the "paper punch" entry of the bullet through the coat and shirt of JFK, which not only "punched out" fabric, but also carried this fabric down into the wound of entry, there is little that is difficult in resolution of the facts of the issues.

Last time that I checked, even kindergarden children knew exactly which "peg" to place in which hole, as well as which end of the "peg" actually fits the hole.

Nevertheless, even though one may feel that they "know" something, proper research, as well as prudent thinking, should tell one that there again should be a comparison between the bullet entry wound in the back/upper neck of JFK as compared with a normal 6.5mm Carcano bullet entry into soft flesh.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In continuation of this study, assuming that one does not know/is not aware of what an entry wound in human flesh, as created by the flat base and/or flat nose of a similar "wadcutter" bullet, then perhaps they should take the time to understand the principals of, as well as the rationale as to why the wadcutter was developed.

For the most part, those of us who have seen "wadcutter" bullet entry wounds, whether in the individual or in paper targets, generally, immediately recognize the exact physical characteristic which the bullet must possess with it's "Striking End" in order to create such an entry.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As most researchers are aware, the original consensus reached at the end of the autopsy of JFK was that the bullet/missile which struck him in the back/upper neck, penetrated only a short distance.

In that regards, based on closed session discussions of members of the WC, one must assume that the original autopsy report stated as much.

Along with the statements regarding a possible "fragment" having been responsible for the anterior neck wound.

As most researchers are aware, the original consensus reached at the end of the autopsy of JFK was that the bullet/missile which struck him in the back/upper neck, penetrated only a short distance.

In that regards, based on closed session discussions of members of the WC, one must assume that the original autopsy report stated as much.

Along with the statements regarding a possible "fragment" having been responsible for the anterior neck wound.

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

Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet,

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

Fortunately, FBI Agent Robert Frazier has fully clarified the exact location of any missing portion of CE399 in which a purported "fragment" could have come from this bullet.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And, since I saw no benefit to be derived in accepting as fact, any of the other lies and misrepresentations of the WC, then I also see no benefit to be derived in accepting that JBC is hit by a bullet at/around Z223/224.

Therefore, Mr. Purvis, I guess you'll just choose to totally IGNORE all of the OTHER signs of a "JBC hit" in the Z-Frames that immediately follow Z224 too. Right?

Signs like -- The grimace on Connally's face and the opening of his mouth at Z225, the unusually-fast "hat flip" with his right hand/arm (the precise hand/wrist that was injured during the shooting), plus the lapel flip (or "bulge") as well (although the lapel movement could be caused by a combination of things, but if CE399 didn't cause at least a portion of that big "flip"/"bulge" at exactly Z224, then it's a pretty amazing co-inky indeed, seeing as how JBC is "reacting" to being shot in all these other ways at JUST EXACTLY the same time around Z224).

And there's also, of course, the shoulder being driven forward (and downward slightly), as Bill Miller has mentioned a million times too. And, in addition, there's also the fact that JBC's shoulders RAISE up a bit immediately after the right shoulder is driven forward at Z224. The "raised shoulders" movement, IMO, is an obvious "involuntary reaction", just as most of the other items I've mentioned are as well (e.g., the facial grimace, the open mouth, the quick up/down arm movement, and the initial "at-impact" shoulder movement being caused by the bullet going through his chest and back).

Mark Fuhrman did the exact same thing in his weak-sister anti-SBT book, "A Simple Act Of Murder" -- i.e., he decided to completely ignore ALL of the above-mentioned indications of Mr. Connally being struck by a bullet at Z223-Z224....and, instead, Fuhrman decided to put a new wrinkle into the lore of JFK assassination literature by disbelieving the SBT but still maintaining that Lee Oswald was the lone killer (which, of course, is absolutely impossible).

But ignoring all of those signs of a JBC hit at Z224 is just plain kooky (IMO, you see). .....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c7616a35ac60e22

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...468ba452baf99c0

"Therefore, Mr. Purvis, I guess you'll just choose to totally IGNORE all of the OTHER signs of a "JBC hit" in the Z-Frames that immediately follow Z224 too. Right?"

I do believe that about sums it up.

Always being the "Doubting Thomas", I would also state that I have never been one to merely accept that because someone says something is indicative that I too should be stupid and repeat it, when in fact it has no basis in fact and is supported by nothing more than opinion.

And, when JEH is the primary salesman attempting to sell this "pig in a poke", rest assured that I am even more leary.

In error, or not, I have operated under the generally accepted position that I, not unlike most of our species, was endowed with the capability of independent thought process for a reason.

And, were I to merely be one to "follow" around because someone else says something, then I may as well have been a sheep; goat; cow; or any other number of creatures who were not so endowed with the capability for separate and independent thought.

Therefore, when it comes to being a "sheeple", it is assumed that I have been left out.

So, in event you need someone to tell you what you see at Z224, etc; that is your problem, not mine.

It certainly does not take any great amount of experience and/or intelligence to observe in the Z-film that JBC is "reacting".

Unfortuntely,neither my crystal ball, nor the Z-film, adequately explains just exactly what this "reaction" is actually all about and in response to.

However, since at Z-275 JBC is sitting fully erect and turned around looking directly at JFK, my limited experience in observation of persons who have been shot, tells me that JBC is not likely to have 5-inches of his right fifth rib blown our either here, or at the Z224 position either.

And, I did not even require the testimony of the Dallas Surgeon to know that one.

"But ignoring all of those signs of a JBC hit at Z224 is just plain kooky (IMO, you see). ....."

Just perhaps, if someone were to take a couple of shots at you, then an "alternative" answer may come to mind.

There are "signs" and then again, there are "signs"!

Nowhere, Oklahoma.

Is it: No Where, Oklahoma?

or

Now Here, Oklahoma?