Ashton Gray Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ok. I understand we are in agreement there now. It mayseem petty in some way, but, with that cleared up one can approach the issue with more confidence.I still would really like to study the weave of the fabric of the poor quality photo, which is near impossible as it is. If you come across a better clearer (color pref) image please find a way of scanning and posting. The shirt JFK was wearing clearly has a much higher thread count than the contol photo, and probably was Pinpoint Oxford which usually has a thread count 140+ per square inch. Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ok. I understand we are in agreement there now. It mayseem petty in some way, but, with that cleared up one can approach the issue with more confidence.I still would really like to study the weave of the fabric of the poor quality photo, which is near impossible as it is. If you come across a better clearer (color pref) image please find a way of scanning and posting. I still would really like to study the weave of the fabric of the poor quality photo, which is near impossible as it is. If you come across a better clearer (color pref) image please find a way of scanning and posting. No doubt to the relief of many, I will soon be completely out of the scanning as well as posting business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well, I've learnt a lot and will be sorry to see you go. In the meantime here are the items rotated and scaled. The bullet in the lower corner is to size as well with its base flipped and with the nose superimposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 No doubt to the relief of many, I will soon be completely out of the scanning as well as posting business. Thomas, I don't know if you include me in the "many," but if so, please remove me from that set. I greatly respect your work and it is an enduring important contribution to the research. If evidentiary trails couldn't lead to different conclusions, we wouldn't need courts. Such divergence of analysis and opinion and conclusion sometimes are divisive indeed, but good faith work in collecting and assessing evidence and seeking logical explanation always is a contribution that advances toward the truth. Even attempting to cross a field of evidence strewn with the landmines of so many malicious falsehoods and omissions as the Kennedy assassination is an act of courage and dedication, which you have demonstrated consistently, and have had the integrity to stand by your observations in the face of sometimes fiery rhetoric and the near impossibility of achieving consensus. Pride in such work and personal integrity—not consensus—is the reward, and the fruits of such work always endure, and always ultimately contribute to paving a path toward the truth. So whatever our differences in analysis or conclusion at this stage of the game, my hat's off to you for your fine work (avatar photo notwithstanding). Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hi Tom, If Ashton allows I'd like to echo completely the sentiments he has expressed in his post. For the most part I couldn't express myself better than that. Can I ask why you are not going to be posting scanning in the future? Your work has always been of the highest standard, well documented and impressively researched with many primary source interview materials. I have always found your work to be diligently, honestly and faithfully performed. Your work will be sorely missed and I hope there is a solution that will allow you to remain an active forum participant. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well, I've learnt a lot and will be sorry to see you go. In the meantime here are the items rotated and scaled. The bullet in the lower corner is to size as well with its base flipped and with the nose superimposed. I don't get it. Why are there two different shirts with two different holes? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 No doubt to the relief of many, I will soon be completely out of the scanning as well as posting business. Tom, It will only be a relief to those who are not interested in learning and finding the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well, I've learnt a lot and will be sorry to see you go. In the meantime here are the items rotated and scaled. The bullet in the lower corner is to size as well with its base flipped and with the nose superimposed. 1. The first stage of analysis was an extremely sensitive form of X-ray which would detect any potential metallic residue in the fabric surrounding the edges of the hole. FBI Agent Henry Heiberger informed me that he X-rayed the hole in the shirt. 2. If no trace of any residue is found, little use in proceeding with any additional analysis 3. If metallic residue is indicated based on the X-ray, then sections of fabric which surround the edges of the hole and which demonstrate the residue are removed. FBI Agent Henry Heiberger informed me that the entrance hole in the back of the shirt contained indications of metallic residue from the X-ray examination.. He thereafter removed portions of the fabric from around the edges of the hole and subjected these to further analysis. 4. The old lab techniques were "flame analysis" in which the sample is destroyed, Being quite familiar with this technique, we had additional common ground, and thus Henry Heiberger shared with me what he claimed as the results of the flame analysis testing. 5. The metallic residue which was embedded in the fabric surrounding the hole was revealed to have been copper. A few other points of interest came out during one or more of my telephone conversations with FBI Agent/Laboratory Technician Henry Heiberger: A. He had no knowledge of any "slit" in the front collar and conducted absolutely no examination of any such slit. B. The tie had an abraised area. X-ray revealed metallic residue. He conducted no additional testing of the tie as he was shipped off on the "Oswald was Here" written in chalk on the inside of an abandonded RR boxcar in Atlanta, Ga. Thereafter he was delegated the task of determination of who manufactured the chalk. (Think about that one for a while) "I don't know what the hell that was all about! That was the biggest waste of my time! I eventually determined who manufactured the chalk but it proved nothing, and we all knew that Oswald was dead and buried." Henry Heiberger to Tom Purvis C. Although the metallic residue found embedded in the fabric of the time was in all probability lead, this of course has to be speculation since it was never examined further. Had it been copper then one can rest assured that we would have heard about it as further proof of the SBT theory. D. Neither Henry Heiberger nor any other FBI Agent from the Spectrographic Analysis section of the FBI Lab conducted any testing and examination on the coat of JFK. In regards to the Testimony of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, and specifically in regards to his testimony regarding examination of the clothing of JFK: 1. None of those from the Spectrographic Analysis section of the lab have any knowledge as to where Frazier may have come up with the information given in his WC Testimony. 2. Laboratory analysis/examination sheets were filled out on each and every piece of evidence examined, for each and every test. Henry Heiberger stated that I should get these and look at them if there are any doubts as to what was examined and what was not, as well as the final results. (believe me I would most certainly like to see them, but recognize that it is most unlikely that I ever will) 3. In regards to Frazier's testimony regarding examination of the coat of JFK: a. No one claims to have examined the coat. b. Comparison/control samples are taken directly adjacent to the area of interest, and are circled in chalk to insure designation as a control/comparison sample location. c. Comparison/Control samples are not taken when metallic residue is found embedded in the threads surrounding a bullet hole. Since metal is not a normal substance utilized in the manufacture of clothing, and since the X-rays reveal the exact location of the metallic residue, exactly why would one require a "comparison/control" sample. d. In the instance of the coat, had there been any need for a comparison/control sample, it would have been taken directly adjacent to the existing hole. It most certainly would not have been taken some 4 to 5 inches higher at the collar area where hair cream, makeup, etc; could create problems in analysis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. FRAZIER - Traces of copper were found around the margins of the hole in the back of the coat, and as a control, a very small section under the collar was taken, and no copper being found there, it was concluded that the copper was foreign to the coat itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry about that Mr. Frazier, but the "oblique" hole located at the edge of the collar of the coat worn by JFK, which completely penetrates the coat as well as the inner liner on an angle, IS NOT a "control" sample location. It happens to be the first point of impact for the shot which was fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB and struck JFK down in front of the Altgens Position, when JFK was leaning/laying well forward. aka, the third/last/final shot. And, although everyone, since the WC, has repeated this rumor which is based entirely on hearsay testimony that it is a control sample location, "Doubting Thomas" has found otherwise. P.S. Dr. Lattimer gives the best description of the hole'(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence. The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular. Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385. 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. ________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ The ole "note from mom" or whoever trick! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER - Now, does the one which you have described as the entry of the bullet go all the way through? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes through both layers. Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below. Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course? Commander HUMES - No. Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side? Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Guess that it must have been an "irregular" control sample. Or else a bullet striking at an oblique angle. P.P.S. It is not nearly a "puncture" as was the back shoulder entry through the coat as the flat base of CE 399 punched out and removed considerable fabric from the coat and shirt when it carried this fabric down into the wound of entry. Normal bullet striking nose first at 2,000+ fps do not make large holes in clothing. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8...vid_CE393-1.jpg Normal entry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hi Tom, If Ashton allows I'd like to echo completely the sentiments he has expressed in his post. For the most part I couldn't express myself better than that. Can I ask why you are not going to be posting scanning in the future? Your work has always been of the highest standard, well documented and impressively researched with many primary source interview materials. I have always found your work to be diligently, honestly and faithfully performed. Your work will be sorely missed and I hope there is a solution that will allow you to remain an active forum participant. Gary My mission in life does not include attempting to persuade the world that the WC is a lie, even if there was a single assassin. Neither does it include demonstrating that LHO absolutely was not a "lone nut", even though to a high degree of probability he was the lone assassin. I am in the progress (again) of explaining the facts of CE399, which clearly demonstrate that it never touched JBC, as well as that the WC was a manipulated lie in this regards. The Z313 shot to the head of JFK clearly fragmented into multiple pieces (which is also easily understood why). JBC was hit by an intact bullet. Therefore, either there were multiple assassins, or else the WC covered up the facts related to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" (which actually did not miss.) I have provided the absolutely first irrefutable proof of altered evidence on the part of the WC. I have provided most of the available survey information related to the works in Dealy Plaza, as well as the many means which the WC utilized to obfuscate the materials. I have provided the relatively accurate information related to the physical impact location of the third/last/final shot, as well as the injuries which were received by JFK as well as JBC from this shot. And, although I could describe for you the ultimate and final condition of the bullet from "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" (and did not miss), some things are best left for others to resolve. These materials were secured away many years ago as there was no means by which such knowledge and information could be openly made public, as the stupidity of this subject matter had reached an all time high. Now, with the advent of the internet, we can have absolutely mass stupidity and the entire world can chase multiple assassins and body snatchers. And the more it is yelled, the more the "sane" world believes that ALL JFK researchers are looney and thus should not be given much attention. Were it not for the simple fact that a few rational persons out there are struggling with what is and what is not the factual evidence, I most probably would have stuck with the flower gardens. In other words, I am quite tired of many of the asinine subject matters which continue to chase unicorns in Alice land. 40+ years and it is more confused now than when these materials were placed away some 13 or 14 years ago, and although there are only few in numbers, there are still those who believe the body kidnap scenario. Unfortunately however, the "Multiple Assassin" crowd has multiplied like rabbits. It has been a pleasure to see the work on the Z-film and the now comparisons with other films, and It will ultimately, at least in my mind, provide some of the answers to some questions. Provided of course that one knows what the questions are. Much of what has been presented on this forum has never been seen nor heard of prior to my having provided it, and unless there is some great reason, it most probably will not be openly made public again. (except by those who will most likely attempt to claim it as some of their own works) Would that certain groupings such as the current film analysis group get together and dedicate themselves to resolving the evidence and issues, it is doubtful that there is anything which they could not resolve in this internet age. Lastly, I grow quite weary in hearing about the big, bad old US Government/SS/CIA/FBI, etc; etc; etc; which assassinated JFK and then covered it completely up as a part of the "Big Plan'. First off, the liars of the WC, although government employees, and most certainly representing the interest of LBJ & Cronies, IS NOT the United States Government. The US Government contains several branches with many, many persons, and they had nothing to do with the lies which a limited few sneaky lawyers pulled on everyone, strictly due to either their own personal gain or else some form of political blackmail. The WC Lie is about POLITICS, and has little to do with who may have or may not have been behind the assassination of JFK. Granted, the WC did not look too hard for the answer to that one either, but they were quite gainfully occupied in pulling the wool over everyone's eyes in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" (and did not miss) I was once informed that if one chose to be a martyr that it should be over something worthwhile. Attempting to convince persons who are obviously quite lacking in research capability of the facts related to how JFK was assassinated is hardly worth martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Before Tom leaves, I wish he would address the shirt hole photos he posted, which SHOW TWO DIFFERENT SHAPED HOLES in the shirt. I have never been aware of this anomaly before. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 Before Tom leaves, I wish he would address the shirt hole photos heposted, which SHOW TWO DIFFERENT SHAPED HOLES in the shirt. I have never been aware of this anomaly before. Jack 1. It is the same shirt. 2. The photo on the right is a little known FBI pre-examination/analysis photo which clearly demonstrates the "punch-type" hole of entry, which, not unlike a paper punch, was created by the flat and slightly deformed base of CE 399 as it "punched" through the clothing of JFK and into the back. 3. The Mary Ferrell photo on the left is of the shirt after it was turned over to the National Archives. It is a "post-examination/analysis" photo which was taken after FBI Agent Henry Heiberger had cut and removed fabric from the surrounding edges of the entrance hole for spectrographic analysis. The results being that copper was found embedded in the fabric surrounding the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 This illustrates why I'm interested in a better photo. Having resized all the components to the same scale:: An attempted reconstruction using the top edge of the hole from the bad photo and the lower edge from the good one and placing them according to the few clues that are avaiable and ending up with a hole roughly like this. On the right side of this is a suggested arc which combined with the edge of the frayed areas suggests a curve which nicely matches a curve in the base of the bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 This illustrates why I'm interested in a better photo.Having resized all the components to the same scale:: An attempted reconstruction using the top edge of the hole from the bad photo and the lower edge from the good one and placing them according to the few clues that are avaiable and ending up with a hole roughly like this. On the right side of this is a suggested arc which combined with the edge of the frayed areas suggests a curve which nicely matches a curve in the base of the bullet. For all; The factual investigation and examination of the original as well as latter forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence has always been hampered by such items as lack of original photo's & documents as well as the latter photo's. (Pre-examination vs. Post-examination) Thusly, many have looked at evidence and become even more confused as there was little to explain exactly where in the stage it fell, as well as exactly why the photo's demonstrated what was seen. Few it would seem were aware of the facts as to a normal bullet entry not removing cloth and clothing and merely "pushing' it's way through the fabric. Yet, it is a common known forensic/ballistic fact. Few if any were aware of the reported facts (Henry Heiberger's personal conversations with me) in regards to how the clothing was examined; what clothing was examined; the results; etc. In fact, in the 40+ years since this event, few people appear to be aware of much of the actual factual evidence in the assassination of JFK. To involved with chasing mythological creatures and intentionally generated "smoke" to actually examine the evidence, it would seem. P.S. It takes work; time, and believe me, considerable money to actually research the evidence and secure first-hand statements from the actual first-hand participants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 (edited) Remember too that the pipe is up against the corner of the box this box is on. So, the sniper here would have the left shoulder behind the pipe. The WC reconstruction not only ignored the box but also the pipes and basically produced a sniper location that was impossible, in order to prove the shots came from here in the way they suggested. Cameras can easily create the illusion that there is no pipe there. In fact to take these photos the camera just has to be beside the pipes. The viewer of the photos, because the pipes are out of frame gats the feeling that there are no pipes. They're there, they're solid and immovable and the sniper must take them into account in order to shoot through this window. So, from this location, the sniper would have to move to the right, forward and up in order to take this shot. Then the succeeding shots are not just a matter of raising the rife, but also to pan to the right and up. There the right edge of the window frame and the lower edge of the window comes into play. Edited January 15, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 http://cuban-exile.com/photo/jfk-new/comm-exhb887-mndc01.jpg illustrates the 'deception'. The photo is taken so one cannot easily see depth. Most clues are obscured. However it's possible to project the wall edges so that the length of the left shoe is known and thus the tip of the right shoe identified. His left elbow is placed to the right side of the knee and then the left wrist is bent back so his left forearm gets around the front pipe. This means (look at shadow of nose on rear pipe and shadow of gun/camera assembly on front pipe) that his left eye looks at the pipe so his shoe knee forearm left forehead are up close to the pipes. Look at the location of the rifle butt. To lean into the rifle and hold it in this location for this shot is impossible, ie the evidence is not evidence at all. Why would they need to contort, remove box, ignore pipes in order to prove a shot was possible from here when, if it was possible without all this deception, why bother? Does it mean that the only way to justify a shot from here one needs to do this and therefore there was never a shot from here? 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